Do we have the pieces to go to a 4-3?

[adambr2]

Your "article" was a blog. That's about as credible as any opinion here. I'm not doing your homework for you. Go Google it. It's common knowledge that Raji would command a high dollar. If you think he'll come back on the cheap then you're not paying attention to FA in the NFL.
That's right. Boyd is a project player. Who knows what he can do? Obviously not as much as Raji. Would he "make the leap" as McMillian did? lol. I'm not saying Raji can't be replaced. But let's face it, draft failures happen all the time. Go look at past drafts, go look at how many failures. Raji is not by any stretch of the imagination a bust. He might not be worth his pick but he's far better than a ton of guys picked 1st or 2nd round to fill that spot since then. Hawk was picked high but he's not a bust. He's just not the player anybody saw at his pick. Still......
What kind of pick would it take, 1st, 2nd, 3rd to find another Hawk or Raji? You don't know and I don't either. It's all a guessing game to some degree. What FA would equal their production? Go look at past drafts adambr, go look. Look at every FA in the last couple of years. It's not as certain as you think. Personally I think people are nearsighted not to recognize the value that Hawk and Raji bring to this team. They don't miss games, they'd be valued for other teams. Don't for a second think that they'd be snatched up in a second in the FA market.
What is Raji worth? I'm just going to take a shot here: 8 million a year.
And here's the final kicker: This just KILLS me!: People here complain TT doesn't fill the roster yet they clamor for jettisoning the roster and get new guys in FA and the draft. Hey - you said he can't/won't do that!?

I never said Raji would come on the cheap, that's exactly the problem. I simply asked you to provide these expert sources saying how rare of a talent Raji. That's not me asking you to do my homework, that's me asking you to provide a credible source to substantiate your claims.

I also never said replacement value is "certain", I simply am saying that our current approach obviously isn't working, so why on earth would you want to keep everything just how it is right now and retain expensive pieces of a broken system?

Don't you think part of the problem with our defense is the fact that we would be spending 9M for Tramon, 8M for Raji, and 9M combined for Hawk and Jones next year? 26M combined for 4 replaceable role players. Thats enough money for 2 stars the caliber of Matthew.

I would like to build this defense around a core of 2 or 3 elite level players, and a group of young potentially high level starters with upside. I realize this is easier said than done, and I realize you can't simply go sign every high level FA. But if you sign the Hawks and Rajis and Jones of the world every time, you won't be able to afford to keep your own elite talent that you develop (Can you imagine if Matthews was still unsigned and we couldn't afford to keep him because of extentions to guys like Hawk and Raji?)

You apparently would prefer to continue to build the defense around overpriced role players, and for the life of me I just can't figure out why.

 

[adambr2]

You also seem to think that if we can't easily replace a guy, he should be signed, regardless of salary considerations. We're not working with an unlimited cap here. What about Shields, do you want to keep him? Good cover corners don't grow on trees either, and as you alluded to, replacing him with a rookie or FA is no sure thing.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

The Hawks will lose players once they lock down Russell Wilson just like the Ravens did, just wait and watch.

Not if they replace those lost players with solid draft picks that stay healthy. A big if, I know, but I think that's the problem the Packers are having lately. Our last three drafts haven't provided many consistent, quality players.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

We can also look at how many much higher in the draft the 49ers and Seahwaks have picked for years from being down for so long. They are loaded with talent from players picked higher in rounds. Put them at the same spot as the Packers and their drafts are nearly as good.

Yet the Packers haven't had much luck with out recent high round picks living up to expectations. So i'd have to say they're doing better at that part of the draft at least.

 

[Carl]

Yet the Packers haven't had much luck with out recent high round picks living up to expectations. So i'd have to say they're doing better at that part of the draft at least.

I'm not talking about high round picks. I'm talking about picks made high in each round.

The draft is made to make the worse teams catch up to the best teams.

 

[Carl]

Here's the bottom line:

Under TT, the Packers have won a Super Bowl, been to the NFC championship another time, and won the division a few times. One team (Giants) has more titles since Thompson took over and very few teams have more overall wins. Yes he makes mistakes, but that is success that cannot be argued with intelligently.

People who think TT should be fired for that have unrealistically high expectations and I'm glad they aren't in charge of the Packers. We'd end up like the Browns who keep cycling through coaches and personal.

 

[DevilDon]

There are plenty of teams that annually manage to sign a few guys in free agency that don't destroy their cap. Patriots, Seahawks, 49ers, Ravens and Saints have all managed to sign free agents while not going over the cap. Two of those teams have very expensive quarterbacks. It seems like too many simply parrot the easy yet inaccurate line that we can't sign guys because of the cap. Are we operating under different cap rules than those other teams?

Why should I have to do all that? Conversely, you tell me which free agents Thompson has offered contracts to in the past and the terms of said contracts. My job isn't to to sign free agents and draft players. That's Thompson's job. I'm simply pointing out that other teams manage to do well in the draft AND use free agency effectively while Thompson supposedly can't sign free agents because the Packers' don't want cap issues (I guess because we either overpay players or the Packers have a lower cap than some other teams).

No, no, no, no. They do go after FAs.
You know that and I'm not going to go searching to find who. Often it's not publicized because much of that isn't in the open. You know this. Do you mean to tell me that a GM is a failure if he doesn't get some kind of FA?
I personally believe that FA is the failsafe for drafting poorly. It should be obvious to you that as players get older they slow down and lose some of the youthful energy. It's not the NFL, it's nature.
Call it however you want Sunshine but the cap plays a part in every single transaction a smart team makes. Blue chip players like Rodgers and Matthews cost a lot of money. That will limit what you can do other places.
What happened to Atlanta my friend? They mortgaged their future and look at them now. Injuries have decimated them and they don't have backups who can play and HEY, they didn't even lose their franchise QB.

 

[DevilDon]

I never said Raji would come on the cheap, that's exactly the problem. I simply asked you to provide these expert sources saying how rare of a talent Raji. That's not me asking you to do my homework, that's me asking you to provide a credible source to substantiate your claims.

This isn't a court of law. I don't have to prove anything. If you've done some reading on the Packers you've already found the sources I'd list. You have just chosen to ignore it. It's all over the web. Your credible source was a blog which already points to your "trust" of sources.

I also never said replacement value is "certain", I simply am saying that our current approach obviously isn't working, so why on earth would you want to keep everything just how it is right now and retain expensive pieces of a broken system?

Don't you think part of the problem with our defense is the fact that we would be spending 9M for Tramon, 8M for Raji, and 9M combined for Hawk and Jones next year? 26M combined for 4 replaceable role players. Thats enough money for 2 stars the caliber of Matthew.

I believe the current system is working. I can't say I agree with some of the salaries but at the time they were signed they were good deals. Tramon was outstanding when the deal was signed, Raji is what he is and it's not like you can just go pluck another athletic big guy. The market will determine his value and we'll talk then. Hawk and Jones are good players. (Hawk took a pay cut) I have no idea why fans are so down on them. And they have a backup at ILB that excels when not injured.
You imply change for the sake of change and that's crazy. Remember when Holmgren left? How did that work out?

I would like to build this defense around a core of 2 or 3 elite level players, and a group of young potentially high level starters with upside. I realize this is easier said than done, and I realize you can't simply go sign every high level FA. But if you sign the Hawks and Rajis and Jones of the world every time, you won't be able to afford to keep your own elite talent that you develop (Can you imagine if Matthews was still unsigned and we couldn't afford to keep him because of extentions to guys like Hawk and Raji?)

You apparently would prefer to continue to build the defense around overpriced role players, and for the life of me I just can't figure out why.

Who wouldn't like to build their team around a core of 2 or 3 elite level players? Who did you have in mind?
You don't like signing Hawk and Raji and Jones but guess what adambr? Those are FA signings, just from the same team. If you don't think any of those players would be coveted I refer you to the Indianapolis signing of Walden.
You made my point when you pointed out the signing of Matthews. They DID sign him, he's under contract and they also did the extensions for Hawk and Jones right?
It seems you see dark shadows in broad daylight my friend.

 

[Sunshinepacker]

No, no, no, no. They do go after FAs.
You know that and I'm not going to go searching to find who. Often it's not publicized because much of that isn't in the open. You know this. Do you mean to tell me that a GM is a failure if he doesn't get some kind of FA?
I personally believe that FA is the failsafe for drafting poorly. It should be obvious to you that as players get older they slow down and lose some of the youthful energy. It's not the NFL, it's nature.
Call it however you want Sunshine but the cap plays a part in every single transaction a smart team makes. Blue chip players like Rodgers and Matthews cost a lot of money. That will limit what you can do other places.
What happened to Atlanta my friend? They mortgaged their future and look at them now. Injuries have decimated them and they don't have backups who can play and HEY, they didn't even lose their franchise QB.

Fact is that Thompson hasn't signed an unrestricted free agent in three of the last four years, so I'm not sure how much he's really trying on that front. Plenty of free agents work out for teams that do their homework and don't overspend on the players. Yes, it's VERY rare for a high-priced, elite free agent to work out but I'm not talking about those guys. I'm talking about mid-tier or low-tier guys that could actually provide some help in the event of an injury.

As for the Falcons, why should the Falcons be the benchmark that we measure team performance by? Why can't we look at the Patriots for example. They've signed Steve Gregory who is playing well at safety for them and traded for Aqib Talib who has also played fairly well this year. Not a ton of guys signed but they DID sign a couple players that have had a very positive impact on the team and the guys didn't cost that much.

 

[adambr2]

This isn't a court of law. I don't have to prove anything. If you've done some reading on the Packers you've already found the sources I'd list. You have just chosen to ignore it. It's all over the web. Your credible source was a blog which already points to your "trust" of sources.

I believe the current system is working. I can't say I agree with some of the salaries but at the time they were signed they were good deals. Tramon was outstanding when the deal was signed, Raji is what he is and it's not like you can just go pluck another athletic big guy. The market will determine his value and we'll talk then. Hawk and Jones are good players. (Hawk took a pay cut) I have no idea why fans are so down on them. And they have a backup at ILB that excels when not injured.
You imply change for the sake of change and that's crazy. Remember when Holmgren left? How did that work out?


Who wouldn't like to build their team around a core of 2 or 3 elite level players? Who did you have in mind?
You don't like signing Hawk and Raji and Jones but guess what adambr? Those are FA signings, just from the same team. If you don't think any of those players would be coveted I refer you to the Indianapolis signing of Walden.
You made my point when you pointed out the signing of Matthews. They DID sign him, he's under contract and they also did the extensions for Hawk and Jones right?
It seems you see dark shadows in broad daylight my friend.

Since you continue to insult my earlier post by referring to my sources as "blogs", I'll add some more.

http://nflspinzone.com/2013/11/17/b-j-raji-rejected-8-million-deal-green-bay-packers/
This is one that says that $8M is "far too much" to be paying Raji.

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/b-j-r...ontract-offer-with-poor-outing-against-giants
This one includes the quote "The consensus among NFL insiders interviewed for the column and reaction from readers seems to be feelings of disbelief that Raji would pass up such an offer."

Wait, I thought you said it was "common knowledge" that Raji was so rare? So it stands to reason they would not all be stunned about him getting an $8M a year offer, right?

I never said this was a "court of law", but it's a hit on ones credibility to make claims and then repeatedly be unable to back them up when asked. That's the route you've chosen to go. Fine by me. I've no desire to dig deeper, and I've done plenty of reading on the Packers, nearly every day, thanks.

The fact that Indy made a very poor decision to sign Walden to that kind of offer (which we almost all agreed was a bad deal at the time) doesn't mean that doing the same here is the way to build a winner. Minnesota gave Greg Jennings $9M a year this year, am I then to assume that we should have paid him as well to avoid having to replace him?

Also, if you really think the defensive system is working, I really don't know what else to say. Every time I bring up a point, if you don't know what to say, it seems that you just ignore it. (Like earlier when I asked if you wanted to keep Shields and pointed out that there simply isn't the money to pay every pending free agent on defense like you seem to want to).

I don't want change for the sake of change. I want change for the sake of 2 catastrophic playoff failures on defense in the last year, a 32nd ranked defense in 2011, and a 24th ranked defense this year. I think those are pretty good reasons, yet you still advocate for the status quo.

 

[ThePerfectBeard]

Here's the problem--you're calling something stupid that you just admitted you don't understand! Let's try to explain this in simpler terms, because you should really understand it. THERE IS NO 2-5 SCHEME. The following is base level of football understanding that anyone who has ever played any kind of football, High School or even Madden on your console of choice, should understand.

Base Defense: 3-4-4, "Okie." 7 men in the box. A balanced defense called against balanced or base offensive sets.

Nickel Defense: 2-4-5, 6 men in the box. Normally the counter to a 3 receiver offensive set. Called nickel because it brings 5 defensive backs on the field. Nothing in life is free and we can't play 12 guys, so someone from the front 7 has to come off of the field. Downside: weaker against the run. Upside: 1 cornerback per receiver. You must recognize this personnel grouping because the Packers use it approximately 70% of the time. While they apparently run it more than the rest of the league, it's not necessarily because of Capers' preferences, it is in response to 3-1-1 becoming the preferred base offense in the NFL. If the offense comes out with 3 receivers and you don't match with nickel personnel, you are a fool who will be burned. This is the modern NFL, "Throwball." Similarly, modern offenses want you to go to nickel, because it's easier to run on. This is the chess game.

Nickel Defense Alternative: "Psycho Defense," 1-5-5. I don't know if I've seen it one time this season.

Dime Defense: 2-3-6, "One More than Nickel," Same basic concept as nickel, except you're matching against 4 wide receivers, so you need 4 cornerbacks.

Ok, ok… thanks for the education and I'm not being a *******. I do really appreciate it. However, if someone that doesn't understand the scheme can point out that we get burnt whenever we play this scheme and we play it more than any other team… doesn't that scream there is a problem? If other teams aren't getting burnt as bad when offenses are bringing 3 wide, doesn't that mean we're doing something wrong. We've had Capers for 5 years, we continue to run this scheme 70% of the time, and yet we haven't drafted or signed anyone that can be successful in that scheme. It doesn't take a genius to realize this isn't working.

 

[ThePerfectBeard]

Exactly. They spend significantly more at other positions because they can.

Why have a high priced QB? Because they win teams games and more importantly, championships.

Didn't they spend money on Flynn?

 

[DevilDon]

Since you continue to insult my earlier post by referring to my sources as "blogs", I'll add some more.

http://nflspinzone.com/2013/11/17/b-j-raji-rejected-8-million-deal-green-bay-packers/
This is one that says that $8M is "far too much" to be paying Raji.

https://cheeseheadtv.com/blog/b-j-r...ontract-offer-with-poor-outing-against-giants
This one includes the quote "The consensus among NFL insiders interviewed for the column and reaction from readers seems to be feelings of disbelief that Raji would pass up such an offer."

Wait, I thought you said it was "common knowledge" that Raji was so rare? So it stands to reason they would not all be stunned about him getting an $8M a year offer, right?

I never said this was a "court of law", but it's a hit on ones credibility to make claims and then repeatedly be unable to back them up when asked. That's the route you've chosen to go. Fine by me. I've no desire to dig deeper, and I've done plenty of reading on the Packers, nearly every day, thanks.

The fact that Indy made a very poor decision to sign Walden to that kind of offer (which we almost all agreed was a bad deal at the time) doesn't mean that doing the same here is the way to build a winner. Minnesota gave Greg Jennings $9M a year this year, am I then to assume that we should have paid him as well to avoid having to replace him?

Also, if you really think the defensive system is working, I really don't know what else to say. Every time I bring up a point, if you don't know what to say, it seems that you just ignore it. (Like earlier when I asked if you wanted to keep Shields and pointed out that there simply isn't the money to pay every pending free agent on defense like you seem to want to).

I don't want change for the sake of change. I want change for the sake of 2 catastrophic playoff failures on defense in the last year, a 32nd ranked defense in 2011, and a 24th ranked defense this year. I think those are pretty good reasons, yet you still advocate for the status quo.

nflspinzone and cheeseheadtv are both blogs too.
I never said it was common knowledge that Raji was so rare. I said it was common knowledge that those types of players are rare and they are.
As I said, this is not a court of law and I am not going to work any harder to help you be positive about the team you follow than to tell you what I've read and my belief in those views. You want to be negative - go ahead.
If you were to poll NFL fans across the nation it would be a resounding yes to Raji. There is a post on a blog weekly where opposing teams each week pick which player from the opposition they'd most like for their team. Go look it up and see what Atlanta fans are saying this week. I'm not doing your homework for you.
I ignore some of what you write because it's not my job to go over every single point you raise. I've not the time nor the inclination to refuse your views on every front. You might also like to consider if I don't talk about your points I might just agree with you as in the case of Sam Shields.
Look - you argue against yourself when you say you want to pay Shields (a FA) and then say we can't sign all of our free agents and then you say we should sign MORE FAs.
I am not advocating for the status quo, I'm advocating for a reasoned response, a responsible reaction, not fire this guy and that and jettison our FAs and just go grab someone else's reject.

 

[DevilDon]

Fact is that Thompson hasn't signed an unrestricted free agent in three of the last four years, so I'm not sure how much he's really trying on that front. Plenty of free agents work out for teams that do their homework and don't overspend on the players. Yes, it's VERY rare for a high-priced, elite free agent to work out but I'm not talking about those guys. I'm talking about mid-tier or low-tier guys that could actually provide some help in the event of an injury.

Just because he doesn't sign them it doesn't mean he didn't try. It certainly doesn't mean he's not looking at them and weighing his options. He just didn't see the value there that other teams do.
Part of that is they are happy with the depth they have. Do they make mistakes? Is McMillian proof of that? Yep, you betcha. But I trust in what they do. These guys are professionals and TT and MM are among the best in the NFL.
I understand you're impatient but knee jerk reactions like many fans have is rarely the correct course.
Hey remember Sunshine, I'm a Packer fan too and I waited all last year for redemption for last years' playoff debacle but I can also recognize that this was a team destined for greatness this year if not for some unfortunate injuries. I know it's old and stale but it's just as true. None of us would have envisioned the playoffs before the season began if we knew we were losing Rodgers for an extended period. Still, it's been a great season and I'm looking forward to the rest of the war - battle by battle starting in Lambeau this weekend.

 

[mradtke66]

doesn't that scream there is a problem? If other teams aren't getting burnt as bad when offenses are bringing 3 wide, doesn't that mean we're doing something wrong.

Eh, not really. At least not necessarily. The modern game is a lot about matchups. Bring in passing sets, run the ball. Against the Lions, this is exactly what happened. When you go nickel, you are intentionally weakening your run defense to bolster your pass defense.

Against the Lions, we did get kind of a clinic: Spread out the defense run up the middle. Most teams don't have the match of a good quarterback (Stafford), a wide receiver that DEMANDS a double teams (Megatron), and a capable running back (Bush.) Pick your poison. Play base and they throw. Play nickel and they run. Play nickel but bring a safety down and they'll throw a jump ball to whoever is in single coverage.

So what happened? Why did we specifically get burned?

1) Neal bit ******* playfakes. He's new to OLB, so I can't be too pissed at him. At 3-4 end or 2-4 nickel, his responsibilities are simpler. At least twice, he crashed down, and Stafford had all the time in the world to throw.

2) We'd flow nicely to the playside, and someone would lose contain in his gap. Or someone wouldn't wrap up.

These are scheme problems, these are "Do your job and don't screw up," problems. Each defender has a gap. Play your gap and don't let them run to you. If they do, make the tackle.

Similarly, lets say we snapped our fingers and we a 4-3 tomorrow. We would have played nickel rough the same amount of downs with the same personnel. Only difference would be that Matthews, Perry, and Neal would have had their hands in the dirt instead of standing up. What's the difference?

 

[adambr2]

nflspinzone and cheeseheadtv are both blogs too.
I never said it was common knowledge that Raji was so rare. I said it was common knowledge that those types of players are rare and they are.
As I said, this is not a court of law and I am not going to work any harder to help you be positive about the team you follow than to tell you what I've read and my belief in those views. You want to be negative - go ahead.
If you were to poll NFL fans across the nation it would be a resounding yes to Raji. There is a post on a blog weekly where opposing teams each week pick which player from the opposition they'd most like for their team. Go look it up and see what Atlanta fans are saying this week. I'm not doing your homework for you.
I ignore some of what you write because it's not my job to go over every single point you raise. I've not the time nor the inclination to refuse your views on every front. You might also like to consider if I don't talk about your points I might just agree with you as in the case of Sam Shields.
Look - you argue against yourself when you say you want to pay Shields (a FA) and then say we can't sign all of our free agents and then you say we should sign MORE FAs.
I am not advocating for the status quo, I'm advocating for a reasoned response, a responsible reaction, not fire this guy and that and jettison our FAs and just go grab someone else's reject.

I'm sorry, but the more you reply to this, the more condescending your posts seem to get. Now me not wanting to re-sign Raji is "wanting to be negative". Lovely. If you actually looked at my posting history, you would see plenty of positive vibes and even attempting to attack negativity. But I'm not going to give you examples -- I'm not doing your homework for you, Don.

However, I will give you a very recent poll of what Packer fans think we should do with BJ Raji. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/232221161.html?results=y&mr=1&oid=2&pid=232221161&cid=8500544

Looks like it's not quite the "resounding yes" that you thought. If you are now going to claim that you just said the "resounding yes" would be on a national level, do you really think opposing fans have watching more than a game of film on Raji or know the first damn thing about him other than what they hear through the grapevine?

Your problem clearly isn't that you don't have the time, it's that you'd rather just twist every argument I make and modify what I say in order to fit your argument rather than actually respond to the well-though out points that I DO make, and then dismiss the rest as not having a "reasoned response" or "responsible reaction". This is exactly what you do above when you accuse me of hypocrisy wanting to pay Shields. Is it possible, just possible, that maybe I want to pay SOME and not ALL of our potential free agents and not pay the ones that are perhaps not going to bring the value that their price tag will carry? Must I either want to re-sign every big FA we have, or jettison them all? Is it allowed for me to be somewhere in the middle, and approach each player on a case-by-case basis?

I haven't advocated for "firing this guy" or "jettison our FA's" or "go grab someone elses reject". You're making false generalizations based on a small piece of one argument I may have made at some point, nothing more. I've explained to you in full detail why I don't think a Raji deal is a good idea given the constraints of the salary cap and the responsibility of the F.O. to be financially wise with their resources and ensure that those resources are best allocated to buy us the most wins.

I've given you plenty of reasonable responses and responsible reactions, Don. You choose not to accept it that way, and dismiss it as negativity. That's on you, not me. I can't do anything about that.

 

[HardRightEdge]

I simply asked you to provide these expert sources saying how rare of a talent Raji.

One tackle in the last 4 1/2 games. That's rare.

 

[adambr2]

One tackle in the last 4 1/2 games. That's rare.

Players just too intimidated to venture into his "gap"?

 

[Sunshinepacker]

Just because he doesn't sign them it doesn't mean he didn't try. It certainly doesn't mean he's not looking at them and weighing his options. He just didn't see the value there that other teams do.
Part of that is they are happy with the depth they have. Do they make mistakes? Is McMillian proof of that? Yep, you betcha. But I trust in what they do. These guys are professionals and TT and MM are among the best in the NFL.
I understand you're impatient but knee jerk reactions like many fans have is rarely the correct course.
Hey remember Sunshine, I'm a Packer fan too and I waited all last year for redemption for last years' playoff debacle but I can also recognize that this was a team destined for greatness this year if not for some unfortunate injuries. I know it's old and stale but it's just as true. None of us would have envisioned the playoffs before the season began if we knew we were losing Rodgers for an extended period. Still, it's been a great season and I'm looking forward to the rest of the war - battle by battle starting in Lambeau this weekend.

Wait a second. You just changed the discussion (I can only assume that so many people agree with your post because they missed the context of our discussion). You initially said we couldn't sign free agents because of the cap and that TT had tried to sign free agents. Nowhere in your reply do you follow up on these posts. Instead I'm suddenly branded as someone with a knee jerk reaction. Not sure how I'm making a knee jerk reaction here. Thompson's avoidance of free agency has been well documented over the years. Knee jerk migh be if i was complaining that this year's draft picks were's helping a bunch but I'm saying that our past THREE drafts aren't helping the defense too much. Should I have to wait 5 years to truly consider things?

You also brought up the Falcons as the bogey the Packers should be measured against because they use free agency occasionally. Yet when I bring up a team like the Patriots or Saints that also use free agency...crickets.

 

[DevilDon]

I'm sorry, but the more you reply to this, the more condescending your posts seem to get. Now me not wanting to re-sign Raji is "wanting to be negative". Lovely. If you actually looked at my posting history, you would see plenty of positive vibes and even attempting to attack negativity. But I'm not going to give you examples -- I'm not doing your homework for you, Don.

However, I will give you a very recent poll of what Packer fans think we should do with BJ Raji. http://www.jsonline.com/sports/232221161.html?results=y&mr=1&oid=2&pid=232221161&cid=8500544

Looks like it's not quite the "resounding yes" that you thought. If you are now going to claim that you just said the "resounding yes" would be on a national level, do you really think opposing fans have watching more than a game of film on Raji or know the first damn thing about him other than what they hear through the grapevine?

Your problem clearly isn't that you don't have the time, it's that you'd rather just twist every argument I make and modify what I say in order to fit your argument rather than actually respond to the well-though out points that I DO make, and then dismiss the rest as not having a "reasoned response" or "responsible reaction". This is exactly what you do above when you accuse me of hypocrisy wanting to pay Shields. Is it possible, just possible, that maybe I want to pay SOME and not ALL of our potential free agents and not pay the ones that are perhaps not going to bring the value that their price tag will carry? Must I either want to re-sign every big FA we have, or jettison them all? Is it allowed for me to be somewhere in the middle, and approach each player on a case-by-case basis?

I haven't advocated for "firing this guy" or "jettison our FA's" or "go grab someone elses reject". You're making false generalizations based on a small piece of one argument I may have made at some point, nothing more. I've explained to you in full detail why I don't think a Raji deal is a good idea given the constraints of the salary cap and the responsibility of the F.O. to be financially wise with their resources and ensure that those resources are best allocated to buy us the most wins.

I've given you plenty of reasonable responses and responsible reactions, Don. You choose not to accept it that way, and dismiss it as negativity. That's on you, not me. I can't do anything about that.

Polling Packer fans is like polling losers at a carnival game at this point. There are so many "fans" that have had it so good for so long that they have no idea what it's like to experience a losing season.
I don't want to argue with you and I don't want to "twist" your comments.
For darned certain I don't want to be condescending so I'll end it here. I respect your opinions adambr but I have mine too. Let's just agree we're both looking forward to a "W" on Sunday and let that be that. I can see with each response you seem to be getting a bit more "edgy".
I've always enjoyed reading your posts and just thought we'd have a bit of banter about opposing views. I don't come here to offend and it seems like I'm creeping in on that territory with you so while I see many of your points and don't agree with them I can just say let's let it go okay buddy?
I mean it, we're both Packer fans.

 

[adambr2]

Polling Packer fans is like polling losers at a carnival game at this point. There are so many "fans" that have had it so good for so long that they have no idea what it's like to experience a losing season.
I don't want to argue with you and I don't want to "twist" your comments.
For darned certain I don't want to be condescending so I'll end it here. I respect your opinions adambr but I have mine too. Let's just agree we're both looking forward to a "W" on Sunday and let that be that. I can see with each response you seem to be getting a bit more "edgy".
I've always enjoyed reading your posts and just thought we'd have a bit of banter about opposing views. I don't come here to offend and it seems like I'm creeping in on that territory with you so while I see many of your points and don't agree with them I can just say let's let it go okay buddy?
I mean it, we're both Packer fans.

Fair enough, agree to disagree. We both want to beat the Falcons on Sunday, that's good enough for me.