The cost of thumping beating the ______ chokings

[CaliforniaCheez]

Is there really a cost to beating the vikings?

Yes, in economics there is a cost to everything.

1. Lower draft position.
2. a) The Packers will have to travel to play 2nd place in NFC West(likely 49'ers) next year instead of the Rams. (outdoor grass instead of an away dome game). The vikings get to travel to the Rams.
b) The Packers will likely have to play 2nd place in NFC South (Atlanta?) at home instead of the Panthers who go to MN.

However, the benefits of making "sweeping" jokes about the vikings is worth it.

 

[chibiabos]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

:twocents: OK! WE move down in the draft and get more difficult games to play next season. The only real negative I see is if the Vikes draft a player we could really want! I guess the best scenario would be that GB gets enough draft position to get a shot at some player that can produce immediately and i assume here it would be an offensive player. TE?

 

[Bobby Roberts]

The negative side of beating the chokings

Screw the draft, we shut-out both the Vikings and Lions this year! Getting some momentum and learning to win, even the ugly games, means a hell of a lot more than draft position. This was an ugly win for the offense, but it was great to see the defense come up big all game, especially when it mattered at the end.

These wins, ugly or not, will do more for building team chemistry than the #1 draft pick could. As for next year's schedule, who knows what it will be like? Who knew that New Orleans would be good this year? Who knew that the Steelers would struggle so much? We have no idea to the difficulty of the schedule until we start playing the games, so it doesn't make any difference.

GO PACK GO!!!

 

[TOPackerFan]

The negative side of beating the chokings

I'd rather plan in San Fran than St. Louis. Brett owns the 9ers and has struggled in domes.

 

[cheesey]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

An ugly win is better then a pretty loss!!!
If they go 8-8, like was already said, it builds a foundation of winning for next year.

 

[DakotaT]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

Is there really a cost to beating the vikings?

Yes, in economics there is a cost to everything.

1. Lower draft position.
2. a) The Packers will have to travel to play 2nd place in NFC West(likely 49'ers) next year instead of the Rams. (outdoor grass instead of an away dome game). The vikings get to travel to the Rams.
b) The Packers will likely have to play 2nd place in NFC South (Atlanta?) at home instead of the Panthers who go to MN.

However, the benefits of making "sweeping" jokes about the vikings is worth it.

I'll live with them Cali. Sweeping the Vikings where I live is priceless. I'll just call them opportunity costs.

 

[dxbfan]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

Is there really a cost to beating the vikings?

Yes, in economics there is a cost to everything.

1. Lower draft position.
2. a) The Packers will have to travel to play 2nd place in NFC West(likely 49'ers) next year instead of the Rams. (outdoor grass instead of an away dome game). The vikings get to travel to the Rams.
b) The Packers will likely have to play 2nd place in NFC South (Atlanta?) at home instead of the Panthers who go to MN.

However, the benefits of making "sweeping" jokes about the vikings is worth it.

I agree with you that there is a cost. Having said that though I dont think you can or should play to lose. To my mind the highest 'cost' will be if the teams gets caught up in the euphoria of exceeding expectations in terms of number of wins and starts thinking that they are better than they actually are. There's clearly a lot that this team needs to fix and fix fast. Fortunately, we close the season against the Bears which makes for a nice reality check. And on the other hand if we do produce the type of football that's needed to beat a team like the Bears then perhaps this team is actually better than many people think.

 

[scotty]

The negative side of beating the chokings

Talk about looking at the glass half empty. There is always an upside to winning any game you can. Free agents or any high profile players will be more likely to want to come to a competitive team.. for every win the Pack gets, they look less like a rebuilder and more like a competitor (for next year) and that gives leverage. Players want $$ but they also want a chance to make a run at it.

Not to mention the confidence building for our rookies to get these wins under their belt.

Finally, for all you Favre fanatics , every win probably inches Brett a little closer to making the decision to come back next year.

jmho.

 

[Yared-Yam]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

I hate this way of thinking. "I'm so angry we're starting to win! Why can't we lose more?! I rip this team to shreds when they lose, but when they win I'm not happy either!"

Idiotic I call it.

 

[PackerChick]

The negative side of beating the chokings

How bout looking at the up side. We swept the chokequeens. We could still get some pretty good draft picks.

 

[packerfan1245]

The negative side of beating the chokings

Wow. Who cares if we won't get a better draft pick. The vikings would need it cuz they suck so bad. Thats how the draft is set up.

 

[all about da packers]

The negative side of beating the chokings

Cali, I agree with your first point whole heartedly.

Look, this team has mostly beat the teams that are LOWER than them in the standings. We've struggled against teams similar to our records, and we've been made to look foolish against real playoff teams.

There is a huge disparity between the top talent of the Packers and the top talent of someone such as the Pats/Bears. Look at what happened when DD went out yesterday for a bit, we punted. We need to have a chance at matching these guys next year if we want a playoff shot. The best way to do that is get the best available YOUNG talent that is full of upside and ready to make an impact. The draft is the best way to do it.

The Packers DESPERATELY need a pass rushing DE and a mamoth DT (Shaun Rogers type). Historically these players are only available at the top of the draft, usually top 5-7 slots.

Packers DESPERATELY need a CB that can be a shutdown corner. Best chance to get this is AT THE TOP OF THE DRAFT.

The Packers have no true WR threat after DD. I'm willing to bet you'd be quite at ease if we got Calvin Johnson/Ted Ginn Jr. type players. Problem is that these players are ONLY AVAILABLE AT THE TOP OF THE DRAFT. You may bring up players like Donald Driver and M. Colston as being 7th round gems, but for every one of those there are at least 50 WRs that turn out to be nothing.

The Packers are a young team that is void of depth at TE. We need a playmaking type TE, and the best place to find one is AT THE TOP OF THE DRAFT. Antonio Gates is an exception to the rule, not the norm.

Packers desperately need more depth to push their young players. Most of the players taken in the lower rounds of the draft aren't going to be great. If you have a higher pick in the sixth round, you have a greater chance of finding a talent than picking last in the sixth round. The Packers are a rebuilding team that needs to get its hands on the best available talent.

I know I'll take a lot of heat for this, but I am more than happy to endure a few 4-6 win seasons NOW in return for a better collection of talent down the line. That is the only way I see the Packers getting anywhere in the post Favre era; there will no longer be a single player to make this team the dominating force that Favre alone was capable of doing, instead they will need to rely on a few outstanding players to pick up the slack collectively.

History has proven the outstanding/best players are usually taken at or near the top of the draft. The Packers need these types of players. That is why I can't understand people dismissing the draft position as being something mundane.

 

[Popcynical]

The negative side of beating the chokings

So basically we need four high draft picks?

 

[Zero2Cool]

The negative side of beating the chokings

Wow, more people thinking its better to lose to get higher draft picks. Seems I'm in the minority on the issue.

I always thought winning breeds winning, but apparently losing, spending lots of cash on high rd draft picks is the way to go.

 

[CaliforniaCheez]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

People! this was pointing out the results of the win.

No way would I ever advocate taking a loss against that near unmentionable team.

It was a look at next season and I think the Packers will do far better in San Francisco than in St. Louis. Also playing Atlanta, who they beat handily last year and in this years exhibition season, at home and not in a dome is a good thing. Better than Carolina.

Draft position is never a goal that determines how a team should play.

The "cost" is really to me a good thing.

A little lighthearted post got some of you upset. I thought the last line of the original post was enough to convince you I was not worried.

 

[all about da packers]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

So basically we need four high draft picks?

We need at least two high draft picks. One this year would have been great, coing to shore up a playmaking position by getting a Calvin Johnson type of player. Instant relief of pressure off DD, and more oppertunity for other players. Same way if we could have gotten an Vernon Davis type of TE.

We need at lease one of a DE/DT/CB on D. Get a DT that can pressure and collapse the pocket on a constant basis (unlike Pickett and Williams) and now you've got something that will instantly upgrade your pass coverage. Or get a CB that to build for the future, one like an Al Harris that gives your collectively weak front 4 a bit longer to get something of a pass rush.

This team is rebuilding, and should Brett Favre leave then the only player you have that has CONSTANTLY shown any ability to make something happen is Donald Driver. AJ is too young and inconsistent, and Kamp has had only 1 breakout season. Drafting players in the mid to late first round and you end up with players like Nick Barnett, who is good if not solid, but won't do anything in terms of turning the momentum all by himself.

TT has only 2 more years, and he needs time to get the best players and let them figure it out. If he gets the top pick next 2 years, he'll more than likely be fired because the Packers got no where. You have a new GM come in and spend one year clearing out the "mess" of the previous regime, and the next year establishing a foundation built of "his players". Thrid year he adds to the foundation and only then can the Packers begin to compete. You've got many years going to waste.

That's why I wouldn't mind having some sub-par seasons the next couple of years as opposed to the years just before 2010.

 

[all about da packers]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

Wow, more people thinking its better to lose to get higher draft picks. Seems I'm in the minority on the issue.

I always thought winning breeds winning, but apparently losing, spending lots of cash on high rd draft picks is the way to go.

Zero, where are the Packers without Favre should he retire?

Driver is on the wrong side of 30 too.

You weed out the "top" talent, then you have a bunch of players that are solid, but not spectacular. Winning breeds winning, but you need to have those dominating players. Players like Carson Palmer (pre injury), Reggie Bush, LT may be earning a lot before proving their worth, but they more than earn their cheque soon enough.

With that said, Winning breeds Winning. Look at the Bengals, Marvin's winning attitude is what got things turned around eventually. It's a fine mix of attitude and those special players that leads you to winning. I'm just saying the early winning might prove to be counter-productive in the long run for the Packers.

 

[jhensiak]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

Wow, more people thinking its better to lose to get higher draft picks. Seems I'm in the minority on the issue.

I always thought winning breeds winning, but apparently losing, spending lots of cash on high rd draft picks is the way to go.

I agree, just ask the Arizona Cardinals, they have a boat load of top 5 picks and have never won a Super Bowl. I hope we lose next week so we can move up 2 spots in the draft or otherwise we might end up picking later in the draft like the Patriots always do and never become a playoff team. :wtf:

 

[Zero2Cool]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

Wow, more people thinking its better to lose to get higher draft picks. Seems I'm in the minority on the issue.

I always thought winning breeds winning, but apparently losing, spending lots of cash on high rd draft picks is the way to go.

Zero, where are the Packers without Favre should he retire?

Driver is on the wrong side of 30 too.

You weed out the "top" talent, then you have a bunch of players that are solid, but not spectacular. Winning breeds winning, but you need to have those dominating players. Players like Carson Palmer (pre injury), Reggie Bush, LT may be earning a lot before proving their worth, but they more than earn their cheque soon enough.





edit, Donald Driver wrong side of 30. He's only been a starter for about five years. I think he has 3-4 good years left in him. He says seven more years. I think that's a bit much. I say he's our number 1 for 3-4 years then slips an can be a solid number 2 for another year or two after that.

With that said, Winning breeds Winning. Look at the Bengals, Marvin's winning attitude is what got things turned around eventually. It's a fine mix of attitude and those special players that leads you to winning. I'm just saying the early winning might prove to be counter-productive in the long run for the Packers.

You seem to know. How about you tell me where the Packers are without Brett.


Since you will probably only reply with "actually i dont know zero" ... I'll go ahead with some other aspects.

No one knows. One can only predict.

I'd like for us to have a solid prospect at QB. We don't. Something about Rodgers had me lose faith in him. I don't know what it is exactly.

I think Brett needs to be throwing it less and have a better running game to help avoid his mistakes of trying to shoulder the load so much.

His experience will be dearly missed. Brett's that is.

We could be better, we could be worse. :shrug: I haven't seen Ingle Martin enough to say much a word about him. What I've seen from Rodgers is very scary when I think about it at this moment. I like his better than Brett mobility. His accuracy and timing is off with his WR. That could be from lack of playing time though.



I don't like losing. I hate losing. When we had Sherman, yes it was great getting into the Playoffs, even when we squeaked in. Sherman was poor with his picks. Ted is better. I think with Sherman it'd have been better to lose more so than it would be with Ted. Why?

Sherman needed higher picks to produce better talent.
Ted can produce solid talent whereever he picks from.


That's why I feel its better to win instead of lose with Ted at the helm. If this was a Sherman team. I'd be siding with those who are thinking winning was a negative in some way because of the draft order. Well, not SIDE with them, but be more understanding of it.


I think we've got some good guys on our team. I think our OL is turning into something positive.

TE, desperately in need.
S, same as TE.

WR, DT and LB are moderate need with WR being more priority of the three.

K, P, I think we're okay with these guys, but of course bring more talent in to compete with them.

QB, I'd like us to get a young veteran QB. (someone who's been in the leage 2-4 years) like Matt Schaub and eliminate Martin or Rodgers.

DE, trade KGB if he doesnt take a pay cut and bring in some FA to replace him.

CB, How's Will Blackmon? Will be healthy? Is he going to be our future CB after Harris and Woodson? If there's a question about him on the staff, get some CB's in here too.


RB, Morency is good, how good? I don't know. Two starts, one he almost hit 100 yards the other he only had six carries for 15 yards. Can he shoulder the load? Do we make him the starter and use Ahman Green as the 3rd down back?


I have more questions than answers right now with this team. One thing I'm solid on. WIN, don't lose to get a higher draft pick. We have a good draft expert as our General Manager. Let him do his thing.

 

[all about da packers]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

Wow, more people thinking its better to lose to get higher draft picks. Seems I'm in the minority on the issue.

I always thought winning breeds winning, but apparently losing, spending lots of cash on high rd draft picks is the way to go.

I agree, just ask the Arizona Cardinals, they have a boat load of top 5 picks and have never won a Super Bowl. I hope we lose next week so we can move up 2 spots in the draft or otherwise we might end up picking later in the draft like the Patriots always do and never become a playoff team. :wtf:

The Pats have something the Packers, or any other team for that matter does: Tom Brady. Brady is doing now what Favre did back in the latter stages of the Sherman era, keeping a team with mediocre talent at best at the top.

Not to mention Bill Belichick and many outstanding young and upcoming coaches.

The Cardinals problem was always coaching, they got a coach and they did show signs of life. Their inability to win all came down to lack of solid talent on the o-line.

 

[all about da packers]

The negative side of beating the chokings

Zero, I am in no way implying or saying Packers should loose on purpose. That would be wrong of me, every Sunday I tune in to a Packers game hoping and cheering them to win.

I just am not elated with all the talk of the playoffs and this team being "good" because of the winning. This team is no where near the elite level, and I believe we need talent to get there. With that said, you also need a winning attitude and confidence that can only be brought on by winning to truly become a Superbowl winning team. It's a fine line, but I am not sure all this talk of going to playoffs next year and heightened expectations is the best for the Packers future. It may well be, and I'll gladly eat my words.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

Zero, I am in no way implying or saying Packers should loose on purpose. That would be wrong of me, every Sunday I tune in to a Packers game hoping and cheering them to win.

I just am not elated with all the talk of the playoffs and this team being "good" because of the winning. This team is no where near the elite level, and I believe we need talent to get there. With that said, you also need a winning attitude and confidence that can only be brought on by winning to truly become a Superbowl winning team. It's a fine line, but I am not sure all this talk of going to playoffs next year and heightened expectations is the best for the Packers future. It may well be, and I'll gladly eat my words.

They are not on the elite level, that's easy to agree with. However, I feel 8 - 8 or heck even 7 - 9 is a sure sign this team is going in the right direction. I belive we've had a helluva an overhaul on our roster and we're winning games that we are supposed to. Now, we have to work on being consistent and playing to the potential and to the talent level we have.

Losing can be something you get used to doing? Or something like that. We did our losing. We sucked last season and this season we weren't elite.

BUT


I think we are moving in the right direction. Young players, good cap space and a QB who if used properly could take us very very deep.

 

[Yared-Yam]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

You're all Viking fans, I swear.

Geez, I just don't understand some people.

 

[Zero2Cool]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

You're all Viking fans, I swear.

Geez, I just don't understand some people.

Ouch. OUCH.

 

[Yared-Yam]

Re: The negative side of beating the chokings

Ouch. OUCH.

I'm just trying to wrap my head around this whole "It's too bad we're not losing more" mentality.

You know who thinks like that? The Texans, Lions, Browns and Cardinals. Losing teams play for draft picks. Winning teams play for the playoffs, which happens to be exactly what Green Bay is doing; PLAYING TO GET INTO THE PLAYOFFS.