(over)reaction season is finally here!

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
I would still contend that having a quality backup Tackle, although nice, was not a luxury the Packers could afford to spend 3 picks on in the 2016 draft when they had other more pressing needs. This was debated before, so silly to debate it again. My opinion then and now haven't changed, so far the results just strengthen my view of the risks of gambling on 1 pick VS 3.

I won't even play the hindsight card and list all the guys we could have used those picks on instead of Spriggs. ;)
must've went to the capt school of how to use dramatics in math when it suits the argument :)

whoever we picked in the 2nd round was going to cost a pick. It' not like we gave that pick away. Instead of #57 we got #48. We did indeed give up a 4th rounder and #248 in the 7th round to do so. #248, just an FYI there were only 253 total selections in that draft, we gave away a pick 5 slots away from Mr. Irrelevant to help move up almost 10 spots in the 2nd round. In a draft where people were raging to draft Ragland, they need to remember what they thought back then too. Then decide if they're really tuned into who we should pick or not. we started the weekend with 9 picks and made 7.

I hope we never need a backup tackle again. Should we, and he does a good job, the pick will have been worth it. If he doesn't, then he was a bad pick. If we never need him, then we should thank our lucky stars.
 

GreenBaySlacker

Cheesehead
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
3,008
Reaction score
184
Spriggs was a project player. The fact he isn't looking good playing left tackle, shouldn't be surprising. Now when bahks contract is coming up, and spriggs has 4 years under his belt. GB will have options.
 

Dantés

Gute Loot
Joined
Jan 21, 2017
Messages
11,950
Reaction score
2,901
Spriggs was a project player. The fact he isn't looking good playing left tackle, shouldn't be surprising. Now when bahks contract is coming up, and spriggs has 4 years under his belt. GB will have options.

If Spriggs can't do anything until 2020, he was a bad pick. Plus, his contract runs out a year before DBak's does.
 

Mike McCarthy

Cheesehead
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
632
Reaction score
55
Location
The Deep South
Then cut him.

Finally a post that makes sense! If he can not live up to his bloated contract move on for goodness sake, it is a business.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
must've went to the capt school of how to use dramatics in math when it suits the argument :)

whoever we picked in the 2nd round was going to cost a pick. It' not like we gave that pick away. Instead of #57 we got #48. We did indeed give up a 4th rounder and #248 in the 7th round to do so. #248, just an FYI there were only 253 total selections in that draft, we gave away a pick 5 slots away from Mr. Irrelevant to help move up almost 10 spots in the 2nd round. In a draft where people were raging to draft Ragland, they need to remember what they thought back then too. Then decide if they're really tuned into who we should pick or not. we started the weekend with 9 picks and made 7.

I hope we never need a backup tackle again. Should we, and he does a good job, the pick will have been worth it. If he doesn't, then he was a bad pick. If we never need him, then we should thank our lucky stars.

How is the Math dramatic? It's basic math. We used 3 picks (3 players) for 1 pick (1 player). I actually think you are using fuzzy math to explain it to yourself:
we gave away a pick 5 slots away from Mr. Irrelevant to help move up almost 10 spots in the 2nd round.
We moved up 9 spots BTW, but I know "almost 10" makes your math sound more precise.

Again, this had been rehashed so many times and it's just my opinion, I don't expect you to agree with me or prove me wrong with math. It isn't just the idea of bundling 3 picks to get one, it's the idea of doing it to draft a back-up for a position not in need of using 3 picks to obtain a guy to fill in the second round. Who was Spriggs going to beat out? Bahk, who the Packers later signed to a big contract? Bulaga? At the time of the 2016 draft most were looking at the Packers top needs to be on defense; ILB, DL and OLB. 3 players could have been drafted to try and fill those needs, Packers chose to use 3 picks for one T.

Hope I cleared up the math for you....nothing fancy ;) 3 marbles traded to get 1.
 
Last edited:

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
Just look at what Tampa Bay did... they cut a guy who they had invested a lot in after one preseason game. Every game is meaningful, even the preseason ones. Especially if players are showing the same struggles that they did in the regular season.

"Overreacting" in terms of personnel decisions in the NFL is that nature of the league. Maybe the fans of GB are complacent and happy just to be getting a participation trophy by going to the playoffs each season, but no other team in the league would accept this complacency or lack of attempt to improve the team if they had the key ingredient to winning a championship in Rodgers. The message is that failure is acceptable, and myself and other fans are sick of it. We are overreacting about the defense and Capers because it is a change which should have taken place about half a decade ago.

Again, I know what you are saying, but saying "Fire Capers" after one preseason game feels more like a hangover effect from previous seasons, right or wrong. The Packers organization isn't going to fire a coach they retained from one year to the next, just because of the first preseason game.
 

Mondio

Cheesehead
Joined
Dec 20, 2014
Messages
15,893
Reaction score
3,795
How is the Math dramatic? It's basic math. We used 3 picks (3 players) for 1 pick (1 player). I actually think you are using fuzzy math to explain it to yourself:
We moved up 9 spots BTW, but I know "almost 10" makes your math sound more precise.

Again, this had been rehashed so many times and it's just my opinion, I don't expect you to agree with me or prove me wrong with math. It isn't just the idea of bundling 3 picks to get one, it's the idea of doing it to draft a back-up for a position not in need of using 3 picks to obtain a guy to fill in the second round. Who was Spriggs going to beat out? Bahk, who the Packers later signed to a big contract? Bulaga? At the time of the 2016 draft most were looking at the Packers top needs to be on defense; ILB, DL and OLB. 3 players could have been drafted to try and fill those needs, Packers chose to use 3 picks for one T.

Hope I cleared up the math for you....nothing fancy ;) 3 marbles traded to get 1.
oh, i get the math. and you're being dramatic. again circumstances matter. a pick so far at the end of the draft he may as well have been a FA and 1 in a round where we had 3 other picks. Considering the majority wanted Ragland and Myles Jack, they don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to dissecting a draft. saying 3 marbles traded to get 1 excludes the fact that one was pretty much a marble you can pick up for free at any time, you had 3 marbles that were almost identical so you you used that one and your free marble to increase the size of your other marble 28% and a new paint job
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,287
Reaction score
1,700
The defense has been average at best, pathetic at worst in the regular season, and horrific in the playoffs. How is firing the guy responsible for the defense an overreaction? Is he suddenly going to become good at his job?
After the 1st quarter of the first pre-season game? Yes, I think that qualifies as an over-reaction.
 

JK64

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 29, 2014
Messages
1,088
Reaction score
272
It's worth noting the Eagles converted on 4th down twice. In the regular season, that drive end in a punt early on.
Or a field goal which would have put the Eagles up by 10 points. The Packers' defense always seems to break at the worst times.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,287
Reaction score
1,700
Just look at what Tampa Bay did... they cut a guy who they had invested a lot in after one preseason game. Every game is meaningful, even the preseason ones. Especially if players are showing the same struggles that they did in the regular season.

"Overreacting" in terms of personnel decisions in the NFL is that nature of the league. Maybe the fans of GB are complacent and happy just to be getting a participation trophy by going to the playoffs each season, but no other team in the league would accept this complacency or lack of attempt to improve the team if they had the key ingredient to winning a championship in Rodgers. The message is that failure is acceptable, and myself and other fans are sick of it. We are overreacting about the defense and Capers because it is a change which should have taken place about half a decade ago.
Overreacting in personnel decisions is the nature of bad organizations. It is partially what makes them perennial losers.
 

Carl

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 6, 2013
Messages
3,073
Reaction score
272
Location
Madison, Wisconsin
Or a field goal which would have put the Eagles up by 10 points. The Packers' defense always seems to break at the worst times.

You mean on the next drive when the Eagles started in Packer territory after a fumble? Even a FG there, would have been a win for the defense.

Fortunately, the first quarter of the first preseason game doesn't count as a worst time by any means.
 

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
Overreacting in personnel decisions is the nature of bad organizations. It is partially what makes them perennial losers.
Holding onto incapable coaches and staff is responsible for far more failure than cutting a guy who isn't getting the job done. The Dolphins and Titans are two perennial losers who fired their coaches mid-season in 2015. Those don't exactly seem like bad decisions now.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,287
Reaction score
1,700
Holding onto incapable coaches and staff is responsible for far more failure than cutting a guy who isn't getting the job done. The Dolphins and Titans are two perennial losers who fired their coaches mid-season in 2015. Those don't exactly seem like bad decisions now.
Titans have had 3 coaches and 3 general managers since 2011.
Dolphins have had 5 coaches and 3 general managers since 2011.

I don't think churning management and staff is a recipe for consistent success. It tells me that people at the top of the organization don't know what the hell they're doing.
 

Patriotplayer90

Cheesehead
Joined
Nov 2, 2015
Messages
1,874
Reaction score
130
Titans have had 3 coaches and 3 general managers since 2011.
Dolphins have had 5 coaches and 3 general managers since 2011.

I don't think churning management and staff is a recipe for consistent success. It tells me that people at the top of the organization don't know what the hell they're doing.
Keeping around a coordinator whose unit blows the biggest games for the team each year sounds like the work of an organization who doesn't know what they hell they're doing. Or one that practically ignores Free Agency. Or spends first round pick after first round pick on a defense which seems to be getting worse. Or who employs a coach who passively criticizes the talent acquisition in public press conferences. That sounds like an organization that needs a change.
 
OP
OP
Candidate for Deletion
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
357
Reaction score
19
Titans have had 3 coaches and 3 general managers since 2011.
Dolphins have had 5 coaches and 3 general managers since 2011.

I don't think churning management and staff is a recipe for consistent success. It tells me that people at the top of the organization don't know what the hell they're doing.
I get the point you're making, but you're using Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc to make it. There is nothing in what you said which links those actions of those organizations to those organization's lack of success. Hell, it could be that their churn has been GOOD for them simply because some dufus keeps hiring bad people, requiring some other guy to fire them. Not saying that's the case, just pointing out that making baseless statements doesn't support your point either.
 

PikeBadger

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2013
Messages
6,287
Reaction score
1,700
I get the point you're making, but you're using Post Hoc Ergo Proptor Hoc to make it. There is nothing in what you said which links those actions of those organizations to those organization's lack of success. Hell, it could be that their churn has been GOOD for them simply because some dufus keeps hiring bad people, requiring some other guy to fire them. Not saying that's the case, just pointing out that making baseless statements doesn't support your point either.
Consistently successful teams don't fire their GM and Coaches every couple of years. That's the link. Al Davis is dead.
 
OP
OP
Candidate for Deletion
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
357
Reaction score
19
Consistently successful teams don't fire their GM and Coaches every couple of years. That's the link. Al Davis is dead.
There's a ton of "follow the leader" in this league. If there were a team which was so demanding of it's GM that it did fire them every few years unless they produced, and they kept enough of a personnel core to be successful still, then I think other teams would do the same as well. Still, you are pointing out correlations and not inherently causal connections. Reinforcing the same point does not make it causal, that requires data and analysis to show the proof. They COULD be causally connected, and probably are - it's not like it's a new idea that firing your GM every few years is a bad thing - but you're just repeating a mantra and acting like it is self-proving.

Especially in the last few years that sort of idea has been broken a lot in the NFL, so all I'm saying is we shouldn't take it for granted.
 

Sky King

158.3
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
329
Location
Out of the clear blue western skies...
Consistently successful teams don't fire their GM and Coaches every couple of years. That's the link. Al Davis is dead.
Quite true. The Dolphins and Cowboys had a nice long run during the 70's and into 80's. It pretty much coincided with the mostly dismal post-Lombardi Packer years. At the time, I remarked to my Dad that it would be nice to have a long run like that, even if the Packers did not win championships at the rate they had during the 60's. The Shula Dolphins were the closest example of the kind of run I thought we may never see in my lifetime. I have but my Dad didn't get to see it, unfortunately.

We've had that long run that I had known would be far more pleasing than the Gory Years ever were. Genuinely, it has been. While I agree that the long run probably could have (and should have) more than two titles during that span, I don't take it for granted, either. For those of us whose fan experience spans the Lombardi era through now, this is far, far better than the Gory Years. Maybe not the best era in Packer history but no way close to being the worst.

Now, if our GM had only filled a roster hole or two above what he's typically been doing most seasons, who knows? Maybe there would already have been a couple more trophies in the case. A tip of the hat in his direction for the TE acquisitions this offseason and a raised eyebrow to the dice-roll he's seemingly made at OLB.

You must be logged in to see this image or video!

We've been missing it by that much!
 
OP
OP
Candidate for Deletion
Joined
Jul 25, 2017
Messages
357
Reaction score
19
So, after Game 2, I feel like I should say that despite the wow factor on Taysom Hill, Callahan should be our clear PS QB. Hill ran around on a third team defense - a bunch of guys who will likely not be in the NFL in a few weeks. Callahan has better attributes to be a PS developmental QB given that he is also mobile and can throw much better (imo). I've seen tons of folks saying that Taysom Hill should be our PS QB, and I just can't see why.
 

Pokerbrat2000

Opinions are like A-holes, we all have one.
Joined
Oct 30, 2012
Messages
32,078
Reaction score
7,896
Location
Madison, WI
So, after Game 2, I feel like I should say that despite the wow factor on Taysom Hill, Callahan should be our clear PS QB. Hill ran around on a third team defense - a bunch of guys who will likely not be in the NFL in a few weeks. Callahan has better attributes to be a PS developmental QB given that he is also mobile and can throw much better (imo). I've seen tons of folks saying that Taysom Hill should be our PS QB, and I just can't see why.

The coaches will have a much clearer picture of this then us fans, for exactly the reason you point out, it's very hard to evaluate a QB only on the work done during "garbage time" of the preseason. Coaches watch these guys in practices and know what type of grasp they have of the playbook, reading defenses, knowing their own guys, etc. Callahan probably has the upperhand in that this is his second year with the Packers. Also, the guy they keep has to be viewed as a developmental QB, not someone who could start now, but an adequate #2 when Hundley is no longer a Packer. Personally, I hope whoever they choose can be safely stashed on the PS, not take up a roster spot and we don't see playing again until next year.
 
D

Deleted member 6794

Guest
So, after Game 2, I feel like I should say that despite the wow factor on Taysom Hill, Callahan should be our clear PS QB. Hill ran around on a third team defense - a bunch of guys who will likely not be in the NFL in a few weeks. Callahan has better attributes to be a PS developmental QB given that he is also mobile and can throw much better (imo). I've seen tons of folks saying that Taysom Hill should be our PS QB, and I just can't see why.

It´s extremely difficult to evaluate the battle for the third spot on the quarterback depth chart but in my opinion it was interesting that Hill received significant more playing time than Callahan during Saturday´s game at Washington.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest posts

Top