OldSchoolSnapper

Wouldn't it be Jordan Love? There is a lot of yikes in those 1st round picks, but I would put Love higher than Jaire given the circumstances and the cajones to make the pick. Savage and Stokes suck. Wyatt/Gary are certainly decent NFL players but probably perfect examples of guys whose value is exaggerated by the hometown fans. Jordan Morgan is who knows, LVN also still gets a bit of a pass but does not look good. Walker I am not quite ready to call a bust but this season would be the make or break. One thing is obvious though. These guys, even the ones who round out, are almost never contributing right away, which is a problem. You need way more than that out of 9 first round picks. The most important one was an at-least-decent QB which forgives a lot.

The best player on both sides of the ball on the current team is a free agent. Bit of a problem when you think you're a draft and develop team. I don't buy they're the worst drafting team in the league because not every pick is created equally. If you draft your QBs correctly and they generally have, that is much more significant than getting a Pro Bowl LG and CB that play at that level for 3 years. I do think their drafting is much worse than most of the fans act though.

I did not, actually, I said it was both games against the Vikings but I can see how that was confusing based on the sentence. Which it mostly was. It happens every week in the NFL where a defense goes soft in the second half to play the clock game. They got barnstormed in the first half of both games and never had a lead in either one. At no point were they in control of either game, the second one was just a bit worse than the first. In all of these examples, once the Packers closed the gap, the opponents immediately widened it again - another trend we saw a LOT of with last year's team. It's all splitting hairs to me anyway, who really cares if they had a lead in the 3rd quarter against DET or whatever, they could never close all year and they lost. It'd be one thing if we were stuck on one game, but they were 1-5 in their division and 2-5 against the playoff field. They beat a skeleton crew LAR and HOU. They had a lot of chances to pick up a signature win and failed over and over again. It was crystal clear they were good, not great. It was a clear trend with last year's team. They don't have a Clay Matthews/Reggie White/Charles Woodson on the team, on either side of the ball really. The closest thing was Josh Jacobs. And MLF was a chronic fart machine last year in those marquee games.

Except the guy came out at EOY and said it was time to compete for championships, which implies they aren't doing that or haven't done it. The follow-up to that was Hobbs and an interior lineman swap. I think we are taking a leap to say the team is better right now than it was last offseason. I'm sure the Packers will be "fine." Fine is what they have mastered. Likely a playoff team, though even that seems up in the air in their division/conference, but not one of the very top teams.

Sounds about right. 10-7 with a loss in the 1st or 2nd round. I am not sure how the Bengals got in there with that defense.

The way the Packers do things makes sense the majority of the time. When you are right on the cusp of a championship, to me that is when you fill those last big holes with FA and go for it. They don't do that though. Also, this just isn't accurate. Ted actually did it, going for Peppers, who for all intents and purposes WAS that piece and should have gotten the '14 team over the hump. I am not seeing where the confusion is though. What has Gute done this offseason that even counts as what you're suggesting? Nate Hobbs or the OG? Who both are presumably filling role for outgoing players. Hobbs is an upgrade I guess because Alexander doesn't even play, but he certainly isn't better.

First Vikings game the Packers were within 6 points with 10 minutes left: And down 28-7 at half. And lost. Did you see that game? Because they were getting curb-stomped the entire first 35 minutes. Now post the other game against the Lions in which they trail 24-6 in the 4th, and the other game against the Vikings in which they are down 27-10 with 6 minutes left. Oh but wait, they lost that game by 2 so it must have been super close. If you're going to do this, post all the games.

I would have made the deal PIT did for Metcalfe. Once we didn't get him the cool thing to do was talk about how he wasn't worth it, but one problem is that people are constantly using old figures to find market value. Everybody knows damn well that if we had swung that deal everybody would have loved it. He is an animal, a physical freak, would be happy to block and he is just the kind of raw talent they don't have. He would alleviate everything for the rest of the WR group. He is just your star playmaker that they don't have. I don't think he's ever been in as good of a situation as he would have had in GB either. Maybe there is a smidge of overpay, maybe he doesn't produce. But we are trying to compete for a Super Bowl here. There is risk involved if you want to hit a home run. If you couldn't get him, Godwin would have been a substantial upgrade. I don't buy they didn't have options. They chose to mitigate risk. Maybe they'll be right, who knows. On the pass rush side I am more inclined to agree. I am not big on Mack at this point. If they could have actually pursued Garrett, I'd have done that over Metcalfe, but who knows. I don't think they ever really chased down any of the big tickets, which is disappointing given where they are in the pecking order.

My garbage time comment was more so referring to the Lions and more so the Vikings, when the Packers got obliterated twice and cobbled together some crap way too late to make the final score look close. I'll stand by what I said though - the Packers were never a threat in that playoff game. They didn't once have the ball with a chance to take the lead outside of the opening possession which they didn't even get because they dropped the kickoff. Philly controlled the pace completely and extended the lead to two scores every time they had to. The Packers did NOTHING offensively until that Jacobs TD. We don't need to dive deep to how awful Love was either. And last I checked, the 4th quarter counts just as much as the first three quarters. It really doesn't. You can find 5 games a week where there's a "comeback" at the end of the game because defenses start conceding chunk plays to let the clock run. But completing the comeback almost always requires an onside kick or a string of luck that basically never happens.

You can rationalize that 2/3 of the league is "close." It's all relative. The Packers did not compete with anyone in the NFC playoff field. They got run out of the building, threw together some scores in garbage time to keep the final score looking more flattering than it was. They were not losing those games 40-6, sure, but anyone saying they were ever really in that playoff game is wearing green and gold goggles. Minnesota and Detroit controlled them completely, twice. I am not sure how anyone classifies them as a Top 5 team last season. They were not even the Top 5 in the NFC at year's end. Even if you look at several games the Packers won, they squeaked by some crappy teams. That's not even a criticism, just the reality that mediocre isn't that far off from good. I'd say the Packers were in the top 10 and literally 10th, behind KC, PHI, DET, MN, LAR, WAS, KC, BUF, BAL...and outside of that if you want to include LAC/DEN/PIT...I don't think those three were better, but I do think a healthy TB team was. It would take some wild mental gymnastics to say GB was top 5 ahead of any of KC/BUF/MN/DET/PHI.

They could finish 1st or 4th and neither would surprise me and I feel that way about the whole division. DET - Has to be the preseason favorite but you just never know and it is just hard to keep staying on top year after year. You would think some regression is coming or just Goff having a bad year or something. They were definitely the squad last year before getting decimated by injuries and you never know who comes back from that and to what level. MIN - It seems likely they dip without stable QB play, but it's a talented team. If I had to pick somebody to finish last, it's them, but McCarthy's play could change that quickly. GB - They don't look a lot better on paper so you are hoping for in-house development. They seem too good to really tank, but just don't strike me as a real contender, there is just a lack of playmakers on both sides of the ball. CHI - They have to actually show it, but this is the first time in a long time I've felt like they're doing things right. Williams is going to be a good player. I didn't think the Bears were a terrible team last year despite that hideous losing streak. They were a competitive team and just needed a year to gel. They have made major upgrades and have talent at the skill positions. 1st might be a stretch but I think they're going to be a pain.

So in summary, the Browns are the standard to which the Packers can be compared. As long as we are outperforming the Browns, it's fine if we keep taking talented rosters with franchise QBs to the 2nd round of the playoffs at best. If you aren't just happy to be better than the Browns, that's "negativity." Not a single example of "negativity" in the last post makes a lick of sense as being negative, nor does it constitute "debating ideas."

They were hurt though. The same thing would happen next year if two of the OL got hurt. That stuff is always going to happen. I'm not even saying they didn't mildly upgrade the OL. I just don't think anyone was thinking after Gute's little pep talk, omg yes, I hpoe he gets Nate Hobbs!

Yeah, no they didn't. For one, the "youngest team in the league" is the youngest team by like tenths of years. #1 and #32 are separated by like 2 years. A bunch of teams have their "average age" being beefed up by old kickers and/or backup QBs. If you were to swap out two 22 year olds with 30 year olds, the Packers average age goes up by nearly .4 years. A middling WR who could catch a ball would have been beneficial for them last year, as would pretty much any mediocre vet at any of the spots in which they are very raw. It's probably the single dumbest stat that keeps getting parroted in regard to the Packers. It's gotten to the point where people say it like it's something the Packers are mandated to do. It's just as much one of the self-inflicted problems so many people have with their roster. I don't think any rational person is saying that Gute is some terrible GM. But to me he is essentially front office MLF. He's good, but has done some very stupid things that deserve criticism. He could have at least not given his little speech only to walk it back two months later.

Lastly, the day people stop referring to the Packers as the youngest team in the league as some excuse, I will throw a kegger. They don't HAVE to be the youngest team in the league!!!

I'm not sure what point this is making. Let me spell it out: Rebuilding isn't what Packers fans pretend it is. It doesn't take 10 years anymore and you don't need a HOF QB to do it. They did it twice, nearly 3 times (3 appearances) with different HCs and QBs, a backup QB in a playoff run. They did it half the amount of time the Packers have failed to even play in the game. And they did so taking considerable risks. All the lame excuses about how fans aren't grateful and if they were Browns fans they'd be miserable - whoopity doo. It's not some great point. None of those teams had what the Packers had. I really fail to see the Packers last 20 years as some badge of honor. It's just a massive disappointment for what they had under their roof. BTW, your entire post is disingenuous. Declaring the season 'over' because your $220 million QB suffers a knee injury is not exactly Mr. Negative. Pretty sure about 90% of the fanbase was despondent when that happened. Don't act like it was about the Packers sucking, I made that comment because Love was hurt. If you're going to do that, go through all the GTs where I wasted breath talking to doomers about how the Packers were looking OK. Don't cherry pick one thread where Love is crying on the ground as some kind of evidence of 'negativity.' You knew exactly what you were doing with that 0-1 nonsense, so just shove it. Pretty much every GT I was taking an optimistic tone, argued all year they weren't that far off Minn/Det, and I was one of like a handful of people who thought the Packers were capable of a run. This nonsense that I'm some chronically negative poster is quite frankly pure ********.

And? They lost in the Wild Card. They didn't elevate at all last year. They were 1-5 in their own division, in which not a single team won a playoff game. They were not a Super Bowl contender last season. They were arguably a worse team this January than they were last January. I think it's time people re-evaluate what a playoff team really is when 44% of the league makes the playoffs. The NFL skirts close and closer to the NBA in that aspect every 5 years. They were bar none the worst team in the NFC playoffs by the time it started. These lame-ass comparisons to the 70s and 80s are so dumb and played out. Go tell me who played QB in Green Bay from 1970-1990 and make an honest attempt at comparing it to present day. As far as signing Jacobs, yes, great player, but he replaced Aaron Jones who has been one of the most productive players in the team's history. I am not at all saying it wasn't a great move (they had to do it because Jones wasn't reliable and aging), but when you replace somebody who's already really good you're merely doing maintenance. They did the exact same thing this year on the OL and at CB. Those guys will probably be just fine, but they aren't moving the needle at all and they replaced outgoing FA who were either the same or slightly worse. Peddling those two guys off as 'big moves' is an absolute joke. "I am still curious, what was the move they should have made but it doesn't really feel like there is one beyond what wasn't available. Or Hendrickson? Surely ONE move couldn't completely change your entire attitude of the direction and mentality of this franchise, right? If they were to end up with TJ Watt...that'd just be another move, but...still...complacent?" Wut? Lol. They didn't do ANYTHING remotely close to this. And yes, this is exactly the kind of move I think a LOT of fans were expecting this offseason, especially after Gute's diatribe at the end of the season. SOMETHING, but we got a middling OL, a nickel corner and practice squad WR. "One" move can make a big difference, especially when you're close to contention. The line between very good and good is pretty damn thin in the NFL. There are a lot of losing teams that lose a handful of games by a score or so. Honestly, can't say I am surprised though. The whole M.O. of this website is that average is fantastic and everyone should be smiling at all times with teams that make the playoffs. It's totally cool that the Packers have 4 MVP awards in the previous 14 seasons and not a single damn appearance in a Super Bowl. Just finished an entire season where they clearly showed they did not have the talent to compete with the upper echelon, and we're supposed to be excited because they are adding a handful of rooks in a couple weeks? Oh, ok. At least the Brewers have the excuse of competing in a laughably unfair league. The rest of MLB should be embarrassed they manage to win 90 games. How the Packers seem to completely evade criticism from some people truly astonishes me - and for the record - yes - I would say that the majority of Packers fans are frustrated with this offseason and most of the last 15 years. You can be a consistently 'good' team that underachieves. They're not mutually exclusive.

Pathetic.

DVT is similar to nerve issues in that it's going to vary drastically from person to person as to how long somebody is on the shelf.

There is definitely hyperbole happening here, but it is inexcusable that a small market let this happen. It's honestly bizarre. I can't wrap my head around it.

Pretty much. Winning a series. They have Giannis, and it's not like they don't compete with some of the best teams, so I think even beating Cleveland is within the realm of possibilities, but I'd put it at like 5%.

Meh. I think that's a huge stretch. Giannis has definitely played armchair GM like every other NBA megastar, but I really don't see any of his requests preventing them from winning a title. His hand-picked coach was a disaster but I really, really don't think that was a championship team regardless. I guess sticking to his boys longer than they should have, but I am just not seeing how Giannis really prevented another title. Injuries did more than anything. And yeah, I would say the core was too old to win multiple titles, but it was necessary to win the one they did, it was the right group of guys, and it's not like they didn't have 3 or 4 legitimate title shots. Giannis has been more than any fan could have dreamed of; I don't even like to say "blame" because I don't think there is much of anything to blame the Bucks for. They won a title, and have pretty much followed the same bell curve that most NBA champs do; you ascend, win a title or two, and then end up in the 45-win club for a couple years while your core erodes. Rarely do you get back to the mountain top. You can look at Denver and Jokic and already it seems unlikely they win again.

Bizarre post as I have not posted here in 3 weeks, and you should probably go back and read the IGT and season threads because I'm definitely more on the optimistic side around here. I did not say I was going to root for the Vikings, but I do wish Rodgers would have gone to Minnesota, yes, because I think that would have been incredibly entertaining just like it was when Favre did. And I think watching Rodgers beat them twice would be what this FO deserves for its routine complacency. Sorry to break it to you but you don't have a monopoly on what people can post. The majority of the Packers fan base is frustrated with this crap. They haven't played in a Super Bowl in 15 years despite having one of the best QBs of all time. Then they sink $200mm into another guy and just continue to save cap space for a rainy day for some reason. Meanwhile Philadelphia has won it, fired a coach and rebuilt and won it again in less than half the timeframe. It's the GM's job to find creative ways to improve the roster, Gute has not done this. That's not to say he hasn't done anything right, but if you're going to build through the draft, you'd better draft better in the 1st than he has. I think the Packers have run most people's patience pretty thin especially after giving a speech about how it was time to compete for titles at the EOY. I feel the way you do about all the Positive Pete crap. I'll be posting freely, without regard to your feelings, sorry, especially if and when the Packers are 9-8 in 3rd place.

This is as unexcited as I've been heading into a Packers season in some time. I don't care what they do in the draft. I hope they hit, but nothing they do there will get me excited. Probably since 2018 or whenever it was when I was pretty confident they were going to suck, and they did. I was definitely excited Love's first year and last year to see the improvement, but the Packers are clearly ok with being ok, and competing for the 5th seed because that is what this team is. Not a chance this team wins the North and it is not a top tier club. They're close, which makes it all the more maddening we apparently have this TT reincarnate. My gut right now is they'll be worse than last season. Genuinely not sure this is even a playoff team, with how competitive the NFC looks to be again.

This is definitely the most tournament-built team the Badgers have had since playing in the Final. Doesn't mean they won't lose next round, but it does really feel like they could go far.