Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pokerbrat2000" data-source="post: 962046" data-attributes="member: 7261">This statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense, what does it mean? Your opinion doesn't match up with the philosophy of a team spending over $5 million to try and incentivize 19 veteran players to show up to OTA's.  The Packers head coach also disagrees with you, saying that he would like every player there.Your whole argument for Rodgers not being at OTA's centers around your notion that it would do nothing to improve the team by him being there.  Yet, he and other veterans have participated in them for years and this goes for the rest of the NFL too. Teams continue to pay players to show up, in an effort to improve.  If OTA's only help rookies and free agents, why do teams/coaches even want or pay the vets to show up?  That isn't a rhetorical question, I really would like your opinion on this.  You complain about the money spent on Crosby, when by your opinion of OTA's, you should be making a case to drop workout bonuses for vet players.  That alone would save the Packers $5+ million.You seem to be alone on this island, but maybe you are reading an article that shares your opinion?  Would love to read it, if you will share.</blockquote>

Total: 1,137 (members: 4, guests: 1,133)