Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Nick Perry
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sunshinepacker" data-source="post: 681010" data-attributes="member: 9033"><p>No, I don't see the contradiction. A player can be "expected" to be really good when he's drafted. After a couple of years however reality might set in and, if the player hasn't lived up to those "expectations", then that player should no longer be expected (got tired of quotes) to be a great player. So yeah, you can draft a bunch of guys in the first round with the expectation that they will all be really good but after a few years you need to start accepting reality and adjust expectations. To think otherwise would be to expect the Browns offense to be really good because they spent a bunch of first round picks on QBs.</p><p></p><p>Regarding salary, I've said it before and it's a pretty obvious statement, the QB can create an effect on offense that no single position can duplicate on defense. If you have a great QB then you can spend more money on defense and still have a worse defense. Just because the Packers spend more money on defense doesn't automatically mean the defense is expected to be as good as the offense. I don't understand how else to explain this. What single position, in your opinion, can make the entire defense markedly better in the same fashion that a great QB can make an offense better? If you can point that out to me, then maybe I'll start to think that the aggregate salary matters.</p><p></p><p>How about if I put it this way; if you think "salary" matters then it would automatically follow that any two defensive players, if there salaries are greater combined than Aaron Rodgers' salary, would be two guys you would happily trade Rodgers for if they would take a pay cut. If salary is what matters, then the opportunity to flip Rodgers for two defensive players who make more money should be a no-brainer, IF salary is what truly determines expected impact.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sunshinepacker, post: 681010, member: 9033"] No, I don't see the contradiction. A player can be "expected" to be really good when he's drafted. After a couple of years however reality might set in and, if the player hasn't lived up to those "expectations", then that player should no longer be expected (got tired of quotes) to be a great player. So yeah, you can draft a bunch of guys in the first round with the expectation that they will all be really good but after a few years you need to start accepting reality and adjust expectations. To think otherwise would be to expect the Browns offense to be really good because they spent a bunch of first round picks on QBs. Regarding salary, I've said it before and it's a pretty obvious statement, the QB can create an effect on offense that no single position can duplicate on defense. If you have a great QB then you can spend more money on defense and still have a worse defense. Just because the Packers spend more money on defense doesn't automatically mean the defense is expected to be as good as the offense. I don't understand how else to explain this. What single position, in your opinion, can make the entire defense markedly better in the same fashion that a great QB can make an offense better? If you can point that out to me, then maybe I'll start to think that the aggregate salary matters. How about if I put it this way; if you think "salary" matters then it would automatically follow that any two defensive players, if there salaries are greater combined than Aaron Rodgers' salary, would be two guys you would happily trade Rodgers for if they would take a pay cut. If salary is what matters, then the opportunity to flip Rodgers for two defensive players who make more money should be a no-brainer, IF salary is what truly determines expected impact. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
weeds
XPack
Cornelius Weems
Schultz
gatorpack
edensmage
swhitset
DoURant
Sip
Latest posts
Green Bay to Host '25 Draft!
Latest: weeds
A moment ago
NFL Discussions
The 11th Annual Amish Draft Contest 2024
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
A moment ago
Draft Talk
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
13 minutes ago
Draft Talk
2024 Packer UDFA Tracker....
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
16 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 Draft Prospect Discussions
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
24 minutes ago
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Nick Perry
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top