Pikes Peak posted:

While I do not think backup QB makes a team better (if AR goes down the Pack is toast with any backup)  I do have to wonder what this or any team sees in Kizer.  

There has to be someone better in a nation of 350 million people.

A team that has a strong running game and wants a running QB would be more interested.  But I think BAL is already set.  Maybe he can back up Hundley in ARZ.

Grave Digger posted:

This all goes back to him becoming vegan. Who ever heard of a vegan in Wisconsin? Isn't that outlined in the first line of the Wisconsin state constitution? "We the people of Wisconsin, in order to form a more perfect union, do hereby establish this constitution for the state of Wisconsin to denounce veganism, margarine, and ya know establish government stuff too." 

Lots of stupid young women. They all get religion...eventually.

Grave Digger posted:

To be fair to Fackrell, a lot of sack stats are skewed by games where they feast on bad OL. Aaron Donald had 4 sacks against SF and 3 against ARI in 2018. Not that I'm equating the two or diminishing Aaron Donald's production, I think Donald had an outrageous season.  In CM3's best statistical season almost half of his production came in 2 games where he faced Winston Justice and Demetris Bell, is that any more impressive than Fackrell dominating SEA and BUF? It's a slippery slope when you start getting hypercritical about how impressive 10.5 sacks really  is. 

Sacks are great and all but how about what he does the rest of the time?  I'd like to see some consistently unsexy plays.

History says Davis won't last the season.  He took one real hit this year in TC and took a 2 week vacation - maybe it was less.  But still he can't take a hit.  He could figure the injury thing out and be all pro somewhere else.  So far in GB, MVS, EQ, Shepherd, and Lazard haven't shown those tendencies.  Allison has had some injury issues and Kumerow hopefully has learned his lesson about showboating.  I think Davis is showing to little to late.  There were other years he was supposed to be ready too.  We all know how that turned out.  I would move on.  

The preseason games are stupid.   Not only are you risking injury but most players aren’t giving their full effort.

I mean, it’s great if your 5th WR or 3rd TE gets featured but damn you really have to love your NFL team to watch that.  

At some point they should just get rid of preseason games or reduce them from 4 to 2.  Expand rosters and add a couple of regular season games. 

So, if I am reading the tea leaves correctly, the Packers are putting a disorganized, half-hearted, non-executable effort on tape so that when the real season shows up that will be the impression everyone has.  Then the Packers will run the real offense with a killer defense and surprise everyone.  Got it!

Tschmack posted:

The preseason games are stupid.   Not only are you risking injury but most players aren’t giving their full effort.

I mean, it’s great if your 5th WR or 3rd TE gets featured but damn you really have to love your NFL team to watch that.  

At some point they should just get rid of preseason games or reduce them from 4 to 2.  Expand rosters and add a couple of regular season games. 

I read that 2 (3?) and adding a playoff game was being discussed.

I think the pre-season games are a necessary evil.  I don't like em, but we have to have them for evaluation of the younger players.  I was listening to sirius xm yesterday, they brought up a fun fact:  remember it 'used' to be called exhibition, then they needed to make money offf of the exhibition, so it magically became pre-season...so at the end of it, ya, its $$

I also think that preseason games are a necessary evil to evaluate young players but I also think that four games is useless.  I think there will be a real movement to go down to two preseason games but at the same time the owners are going to not want to give up any revenue at all.  So if they cut down to 2 preseason games I think they will go to a 18 game regular season.  

DH13 posted:

I don't think players will ever agree to 18.

Not unless they get a bigger cut of the money pile, and I don't see the owners giving that up anytime in the future... Can't say as I'd blame the players for wanting more money if they are putting their bodies and careers on the line. And I don't see coaches/fans/owners wanting guys to sit for two games to equal it out to 16 games. It would come down to not using guys at the end just like the NBA does now and that's a problem.

I really don't see any kind of scenerio the players would ever agree to playing 18 regular season games unless the owners pony up some serious money.  I think we all know that is something they won't want to do. 

I heard of one thing that was being thought about is that they would go to 18 game season and all players would have to sit out 2 games so they play no more than 16 games each.  This would be right up there with NBA stupidity in that fans who pay good money to see an Aaron Rodgers or Tom Brady and instead get Kizer.

Tdog posted:

18 game season where players are only allowed to play in 16 of the 18 games is pure crap to me!  so I expect the nfl to implement it soon.

for me, just another nail in the coffin...

I like to think the NFL is smarter than going that route.  Can you imagine dropping big money for a Packers game and you don't even know who is going to play that week?  I personally don't want the NFL to turn in the NBA where you don't know who is going to rest or play no thanks.

I for one would still watch the Packers no matter what but it would be a stretch for me to watch more than that.

I recall there being some kind of stink when ARod didn't play (or play enough?) during pre-season way back in 2011.
We had that wild shoot-out vs the Saints to open that season, and ARod made some comments in the post-game presser along the lines of "...if we had only practiced more..."

He's a pro's pro and knows how to prepare. 

I get that TIMMY! But it's not necessarily about AR.  It's about the rest of the team.  The oline getting the snap counts and cadence down.  The RB's getting the protections down.  The WR's and TE's getting the timing down.  There's a lot more that goes into it other than AR. 

Tdog posted:

18 game season where players are only allowed to play in 16 of the 18 games is pure crap to me!  so I expect the nfl to implement it soon.

for me, just another nail in the coffin...

I could deal with an 18 game season if they SIGNIFICANTLY expand rosters.  I mean like add like 10 guys per team and everyone is active and eligible to play that day.  I agree that only allowing them to play 16 of 18 games seems like it could really cause there to be a lot more meaningless games. 

I don't think the NFL would expand the rosters enough to warrant 18 games, they are too greedy and cheap to share the pie with the players. 

Add Reply

Likes (2)
GoallineYATittle
×
×
×
×