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
Packers in best shape for next three years (ESPN)
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="vince" data-source="post: 616193" data-attributes="member: 10935"><p>In spite of this claim, so far in this thread you made the following "educated" guesses about the lineup in 2017.</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Packers absolutely must re-sign Daniels.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Casey Hayward should be re-signed to a "nice contract" assuming he plays well in '15.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Re-signing current vets and/or Unrestricted Free Agency are options to replace attrition at DL and OLB.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Lacy must be re-signed.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Regarding the offensive line, Thompson should re-sign "all of them." - (repeated for emphasis).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There's nothing out of the ordinary that all teams don't face each year regarding the cap situation in 2017 for the Packers.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Rodgers, Matthews, Nelson, Burnett, Shields, Cobb, and Bulaga will all be playing at an elite level entering 2017.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Packers should not release Matthews or Shields in 2017.</li> </ul><p>The problem with your "guesses" is you insist on making them without context that includes any sense of the reality of the situation. And you justify that by saying there's no way to know what the reality will be.</p><p></p><p>Of course no-one knows what will happen in the future. But when you make the statements you've made in this thread, I think you should at least be prepared to support your conclusions with some (even best-case-scenario) assumptions and context that lend some semblance of credence as to their real-world validity.</p><p></p><p>The assumptions made in the outlined scenario are not intended to be a prediction of the future - as you (mis)characterize them. Together, they detail an optimistic scenario which demonstrates that, even with a preponderance of dirt cheap players effectively filling out the roster and the overwhelming majority of low- to mid-tier vets being allowed to leave (some of whom you've advocated for re-signing), the "guesses" you clearly feel free to make about 2017 don't add up.</p><p></p><p>You don't have to be clairvoyant to see that, while some of the things you're advocating for can happen, unfortunately the 2017 scenario you've laid out in this thread just isn't realistic given the projected cap.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vince, post: 616193, member: 10935"] In spite of this claim, so far in this thread you made the following "educated" guesses about the lineup in 2017. [LIST] [*]The Packers absolutely must re-sign Daniels. [*]Casey Hayward should be re-signed to a "nice contract" assuming he plays well in '15. [*]Re-signing current vets and/or Unrestricted Free Agency are options to replace attrition at DL and OLB. [*]Lacy must be re-signed. [*]Regarding the offensive line, Thompson should re-sign "all of them." - (repeated for emphasis). [*]There's nothing out of the ordinary that all teams don't face each year regarding the cap situation in 2017 for the Packers. [*]Rodgers, Matthews, Nelson, Burnett, Shields, Cobb, and Bulaga will all be playing at an elite level entering 2017. [*]The Packers should not release Matthews or Shields in 2017. [/LIST] The problem with your "guesses" is you insist on making them without context that includes any sense of the reality of the situation. And you justify that by saying there's no way to know what the reality will be. Of course no-one knows what will happen in the future. But when you make the statements you've made in this thread, I think you should at least be prepared to support your conclusions with some (even best-case-scenario) assumptions and context that lend some semblance of credence as to their real-world validity. The assumptions made in the outlined scenario are not intended to be a prediction of the future - as you (mis)characterize them. Together, they detail an optimistic scenario which demonstrates that, even with a preponderance of dirt cheap players effectively filling out the roster and the overwhelming majority of low- to mid-tier vets being allowed to leave (some of whom you've advocated for re-signing), the "guesses" you clearly feel free to make about 2017 don't add up. You don't have to be clairvoyant to see that, while some of the things you're advocating for can happen, unfortunately the 2017 scenario you've laid out in this thread just isn't realistic given the projected cap. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
Heyjoe4
Pkrjones
Latest posts
H
NFC North Predictions
Latest: Heyjoe4
7 minutes ago
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Da Bears new head coach!!!!!
Latest: OldSchool101
Today at 12:48 PM
NFL Discussions
Is it time?
Latest: Sanguine camper
Today at 10:47 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Pre Look WR Predictions
Latest: Pkrjones
Today at 10:00 AM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
State of our former QB, Aaron Rodgers
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 9:44 AM
Aaron Rodgers Discusson
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Packers in best shape for next three years (ESPN)
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
