2 or 3 offseason moves could give.....

Don't know if it was the other comment about Lombardi not accepting losses or mine about Lombardi fans still feeling like we ought to win. Mine was intended to touch on the off-repeated theme that current fans are spoiled because of all the success. My take on that is that being spoiled means getting what you want, and folks that saw the team in the '60s are definitely not, in that context, spoiled. IF we got with the current thinking of making the playoffs and then 'let's see what happens', I would perhaps have been spoiled if the 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2105 seasons had ended with more victories. No, I don't expect them to win it every year, but giving it away most of them is getting old (just like me, and I don't have enough time for an extended series of 'don't even think about the championship' years).
 
Half Empty said:
Don't know if it was the other comment about Lombardi not accepting losses or mine about Lombardi fans still feeling like we ought to win. Mine was intended to touch on the off-repeated theme that current fans are spoiled because of all the success. My take on that is that being spoiled means getting what you want, and folks that saw the team in the '60s are definitely not, in that context, spoiled. IF we got with the current thinking of making the playoffs and then 'let's see what happens', I would perhaps have been spoiled if the 2009, 2011, 2014 and 2105 seasons had ended with more victories. No, I don't expect them to win it every year, but giving it away most of them is getting old (just like me, and I don't have enough time for an extended series of 'don't even think about the championship' years).
Click to expand...
My big disagreement with you isn't actually about what I see as the ultimate goal, nor about what's "being spoiled". I know only Championships are really remembered, and I do want as many of them as I can get, while any kind of window is open.

I just disagree wholeheartedly that we've ever "given it away" in recent years. Losing close games in the playoffs is faaaaar from "giving it away."

I read your stuff and interpret it like this: Not going all-in with UFAs/trades (and not firing coaches and GMs) = giving it away. As if going all-in and/or making dramatic moves meant near-automatic Championship wins. Or even a greater chance at that when taking a longer term look at the open window. That window is open for probably at least 5 more years with Arod.

I suggested a 4-year cycle of max drama and success I thought you'd like here: http://wisconsinsportstalk.net/threads/the-post-mccarthy-thompson-rodgers-era.3946/#post-10624

I AM of the opinion TT could plug more holes with the mid-to-low -tier UFAs, and sometimes keeps too much youth for potential's sake.

But I REALLY hate it when people (not you specifically) don't consider big re-signings and extensions as significant as signing outside UFAs. It IS more boring to keep your own, but it can be more impactful. We've lost NOBODY of any significance for how long!? And that's worth nothing?

Extending Daniels wasn't some petty move, he's easily a top five 3-4DE!!! Shields is a fine corner. Nelson a fine WR. No need to discuss CMIII nor Arod. Sitton + Lang may be the best guard duo in the league. The much-hated Burnett graded 9th best out of 90 safeties in 2015 - and isn't being 5th best vs the run kinda what you pay your mostly-in-the-box SS to be!?

Cobb and Bulaga didn't work out last season, but both could 2016. Even if they ended up busting, mere 2/10 bust rate with big money UFA signings on a current roster would be friggin' amazing for any team.
 
Re-signing your own guys isn't as sexy and interesting as signing a 'name' FA from another team for some folks.
 
salmar80 said:
My big disagreement with you isn't actually about what I see as the ultimate goal, nor about what's "being spoiled". I know only Championships are really remembered, and I do want as many of them as I can get, while any kind of window is open. Obviously, no issue here.

I just disagree wholeheartedly that we've ever "given it away" in recent years. Losing close games in the playoffs is faaaaar from "giving it away." A QB fumble (forget the facemask), a 15-1 season and one-and-done, a complete comedy of errors, then a decent defensive game followed by THAT overtime? It's all subjective/relative, but yes, I do believe they've snatched defeat from the jaws of vicotry.

I read your stuff and interpret it like this: Not going all-in with UFAs/trades (and not firing coaches and GMs) = giving it away. Not even close. The giving it away was specifically the individual games. I enjoy laughing at signing like Suh as much as the next guy. As if going all-in and/or making dramatic moves meant near-automatic Championship wins. Not even close. I'm constantly a proponent of never even saying any7tyhing like 'guarantee' or 'automatic'. I'm basically saying that what's been happening over the last five years isn't working - maybe time to step off the beaten path a bit? Or even a greater chance at that when taking a longer term look at the open window. That window is open for probably at least 5 more years with Arod. Probably. And, what has the past five years of that window produced?

I suggested a 4-year cycle of max drama and success I thought you'd like here: http://wisconsinsportstalk.net/threads/the-post-mccarthy-thompson-rodgers-era.3946/#post-10624

I AM of the opinion TT could plug more holes with the mid-to-low -tier UFAs, and sometimes keeps too much youth for potential's sake.Obviously, no issue here.

But I REALLY hate it when people (not you specifically) don't consider big re-signings and extensions as significant as signing outside UFAs. It IS more boring to keep your own, but it can be more impactful. We've lost NOBODY of any significance for how long!? And that's worth nothing? Surely TT has kept some important cogs, often at prices well below the expected. He's also resigned his own, of much lesser value, to higher than expected extensions. Also maintains a nice pad in the cap department. Now, if all that could just result in more brass rings. (Just read the next couple of paragraphs, so apply this response pretty much to those, too.)

Extending Daniels wasn't some petty move, he's easily a top five 3-4DE!!! Shields is a fine corner. Nelson a fine WR. No need to discuss CMIII nor Arod. Sitton + Lang may be the best guard duo in the league. The much-hated Burnett graded 9th best out of 90 safeties in 2015 - and isn't being 5th best vs the run kinda what you pay your mostly-in-the-box SS to be!?

Cobb and Bulaga didn't work out last season, but both could 2016. Even if they ended up busting, mere 2/10 bust rate with big money UFA signings on a current roster would be friggin' amazing for any team.
Click to expand...
 
Half Empty - Now I'm in a way more confused, and in others less. We seem to agree on about everything, except the results.

I guess there's a fundamental philosophical difference in believing that in one-and-done playoffs:

a) The best team always wins it all. No excuses. Only results matter. The winner had the best roster and best coaches.
b) The format is such, that even the best rosters and coaches can fall victim to "Any Given Sunday". Sometimes years in a row. Roster and coaching talent only improve your odds.

I didn't think we were necessarily the best roster or coaching staff in 2010. We won it regardless. We've had some better rosters and mostly the same coaches and lost.

I've kinda surrendered to the anarchy of the postseason - I love the drama, but dislike the arbitrary nature of it:

It's like deciding the javelin throw champion at the Olympics by putting all throwers into a playoff bracket, and having them beat each other with just one throw each per round. It's very likely the one capable of throwing it the farthest doesn't win. Instead the winner is the one who gets on a lucky run of good throws and opponent slip ups.
 
diesel said:
Not taking the bait. This ain't Chatters
Click to expand...

Bait? What did I say that isn't true? Ted prefers to sign his own FAs instead of players from other teams and this frustrates some fans. I see this on every Packers' forum I post on and not just on Chatters.
 
Pugger said:
Re-signing your own guys isn't as sexy and interesting as signing a 'name' FA from another team for some folks.
Click to expand...

It is what it is with TT, however the last 2 SB winners have filled gaps with FA and won the prize. I am not a proponent of it per say but I think trying to fill those gaps with PS guys has been ineffective the last 3 seasons IMHO.
 
salmar80 said:
Half Empty - Now I'm in a way more confused, and in others less. We seem to agree on about everything, except the results.

I guess there's a fundamental philosophical difference in believing that in one-and-done playoffs:

a) The best team always wins it all. No excuses. Only results matter. The winner had the best roster and best coaches.
b) The format is such, that even the best rosters and coaches can fall victim to "Any Given Sunday". Sometimes years in a row. Roster and coaching talent only improve your odds.

I didn't think we were necessarily the best roster or coaching staff in 2010. We won it regardless. We've had some better rosters and mostly the same coaches and lost.

I've kinda surrendered to the anarchy of the postseason - I love the drama, but dislike the arbitrary nature of it:

It's like deciding the javelin throw champion at the Olympics by putting all throwers into a playoff bracket, and having them beat each other with just one throw each per round. It's very likely the one capable of throwing it the farthest doesn't win. Instead the winner is the one who gets on a lucky run of good throws and opponent slip ups.
Click to expand...

Looks like your overall assessment is correct - we're not necessarily all that far apart. I think my real reason for being pretty snarky in my reply, for which I apologize and appreciate your measured response, is that I post to several forums, and sometimes I figuratively throw my hands up and yell at the screen, with comments like "quit putting words in my mouth" or "good grief, how many times to I have to explain that?". I'll try to treat each post as if it's a new and legitimate discussion, until proven otherwise.

That being said...your (a) paragraph starts off with and finishes with points I don't agree with, partly because of definition (or lack of it). One of my "I've said this over and over again" statements is that virtually everything we discuss here is subjective, relative, or a semantic problem. In this case, I ask first for the definition of 'best'. Eye test, gut feel, line up the rosters and rank by PFF or some other rating - what and who determines the 'best' team in the playoffs? Next, even if that's not a problem, I never meant to imply that the best team always wins - our second Bronco Super Bowl, the two Giants defeats of the Patriots are, IMO pretty good examples. The 2010 Pack is also a good example - on paper, probably not the best, but as an adjunct to my Perfect Storm evaluation of them (i.e., the long IR list and the replacements that all had their career, or even only decent year all at the same time), by some definitions they could reasonably be called the 'best'.

Your (b) and javelin thoughts are things with which I find nothing to disagree, just the apparent conclusion. Is giving an individual or a team multiple chances to show their stuff the best way to find the best (certainly a viable choice), or maybe just the winner? Or, is it more meaningful to put them out there, say "this is your chance to prove it, now win or go home", just as reasonable?

And, the ultimate argument I have for any of this is that the Packers are my team. I don't care how miserable the fan-base of the Browns, et. al., are; I don't care how lucky somebody else's team gets; I don't care anything about the other 31 teams. The thing I do care about is the middle of your (a). Personal choice, but I know what makes feel good as a fan, so I'm sticking to it. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top