Admit you were wrong (But at least you know who Red Green is)

quote:

Originally posted by ammo:

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
The Packers don't win that Super Bowl if Starks hadn't emerged and we had been stuck with BJax as the primary back.

This an admit you were rong thread. So just admit this is rong.

Because I don't think it's wrong and I'm calling it out as something that shouldn't be in this thread.

There's no way to "prove" this either way, but if you've been reading and listening to the experts (and by experts, I mean people who have actually played or coached professional football), Starks was a key addition and helped to balance the Packers offense during the playoffs. If we were a one dimensional offense where the defense doesn't have to respect the run, I really don't think we would have made it as far as we did. Bottom line - IMO - we couldn't have won it all without Starks and instead with BJax as the feature back throughout the playoffs.

Early in the season I thought injuries would prevent us from going far in the playoffs. The losses to the Redskins and Miami especially. I didn't think they could hold up for the stretch run and playoffs.

Jennings said it best, even at halftime after losing Woodson and DD, the team showed the character to finish.

Great job by management to fill the holes, and by coaches and players to believe in their teammates!

I was wrong about MM.

Thought he was a meathead from the first time I saw his mission statement.

Blasted him for being too conservative when playing with a lead.

He did a hell of a job this year.

I almost crapped my pants at how great a game he called in Atlanta.

Got a bit worried when he reverted back to his old ways against the Bears.

But I was wrong. He got it done.

Are you a shareholder pablo? Season ticket holder? If not, please quit while you're behind.

quote:

Originally posted by pablopackerfan:
BTw, when yous say 'WE' yous aren't included. Yous don't get to claim any part in 'WE'.

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
Are you a shareholder pablo? Season ticket holder? If not, please quit while you're behind.

Both of you can knock it off. Seriously, take it to PM or zip it - I don't care - but enough of the monkey poop flinging.

Sorry JJSD. Will do.

I guess somebody decided to give me posting rights again. Anyway, I left the packers for dead after they lost to Detroit. They didn't even look like a playoff team then.

I certainly thought they were dead midway through the 3rd quarter without Woodson - all until Mendenhall coughed it up.

Strange things have happened in the playoffs of late, several #6 teams advancing to the super bowl. Giants beating the Patriots, Arizona in the super bowl and nearly winning, the saints winning....I guess if Tampa and New Orleans can win it there is some hope for us someday, odds are it will come in some other city (i.e. Dallas Stars, LA Lakers)

OMFG - a Dilly sighting!

quote:

Strange things have happened in the playoffs of late

Except your guy Brent throwing away yet another playoff game last year vs the Saints!

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
If we were a one dimensional offense where the defense doesn't have to respect the run, I really don't think we would have made it as far as we did. Bottom line - IMO - we couldn't have won it all without Starks and instead with BJax as the feature back throughout the playoffs.

You might want to ask the Giants and Steelers (13 carries for a 3.8 average) about that.

If the running game against Philly hadn't been as productive, we would've found another way. Just like we did the first game of the year when Grant went out.

Starks didn't play against the Giants, and we didn't exactly light it up on the ground yesterday.

Yet we still had enough to not only make, but to also win the Super Bowl.

Without "fill in the blank", and without Starks going for 120+.

Which allegedly wasn't possible.

Which is, was, and always will be Rong.

I said this was a passing team good enough to win it all.

I (and pablo, to a lesser extent) was right.

quote:

Originally posted by Tschmack:
OMFG - a Dilly sighting!

quote:

Strange things have happened in the playoffs of late

Except your guy Brent throwing away yet another playoff game last year vs the Saints!

no that happens all the time, you guys should be quite familiar with it

quote:

Originally posted by Coach:

If the running game against Philly hadn't been as productive, we would've found another way. Just like we did the first game of the year when Grant went out.

You don't know that.

quote:

Starks didn't play against the Giants, and we didn't exactly light it up on the ground yesterday.

Yet we still had enough to not only make, but to also win the Super Bowl.

Starks - 11 carries, 52 yards, 4.7 avg. The gameplan vs the Steelers was to attack their weakness (their db's), which we did. But we also successfully ran the ball.

quote:

Without "fill in the blank", and without Starks going for 120+.

Which allegedly wasn't possible.

Which is, was, and always will be Rong.

The point was that we needed someone other than BJax as the feature RB to provide a running threat that an opposing defense would have to respect. Starks provided that. "Fill in the blank" probably would have provided that as well, but Ted stuck with Starks, saved the draft pick and it paid off. That's why Ted's the GM and I'm not.

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:

You don't know that.

And yet you know that we wouldn't get past Philly without Starks? We did week one (most of our points were scored after Grant left), and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever if the ground game wasn't working we had more than enough firepower to win that game.

quote:

Starks - 11 carries, 52 yards, 4.7 avg. The gameplan vs the Steelers was to attack their weakness (their db's), which we did. But we also successfully ran the ball.

And I agreed with that approach against the #1 defense against the run. However, how can you say with a straight face that we wouldn't have gotten past Philly without Starks going for 120+, and yet we rush for only 50 against the best defense in the league, score more points in the process, and we still win?

You might want to check out the Giants box score while you're at it too.

quote:

The point was that we needed someone other than BJax as the feature RB to provide a running threat that an opposing defense would have to respect. Starks provided that.

Jackson was part of a RBBC, not a "feature" back. Our play action game was working before Starks emerged, and it worked after. It worked in a "must win" game to start the Super Bowl run when we cleaned the Giants' clock without James Starks playing a down.

Starks was also on the team (albeit on PUP) when you and a few others began a collective knashing of teeth that lasted from September to December. You also essentially even threw Starks under the bus when we had the audacity to lose the Detroit game ("the running game isn't fine") which was the week after
Starks had a successful debut against 'Frisco.

Our running back group excelled in three of the four primary skill areas all year long: catching the ball well, pass blocking, and ball security. If you don't believe the latter isn't very important, you might want to ask the Steelers about that. Our running backs fumbled only twice in 20 games.

Starks absolutely added some juice on the ground, but we won games before he emerged and we won them down the stretch without him being a large factor (Bears @ Lambeau) or even playing at all (Giants).

quote:

"Fill in the blank" probably would have provided that as well, but Ted stuck with Starks, saved the draft pick and it paid off. That's why Ted's the GM and I'm not.

So in other words, you were wrong?

That, I can agree with.

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
The gameplan vs the Steelers was to attack their weakness (their db's), which we did. But we also successfully ran the ball.

the gameplan was to give the ball to Rodgers and win as a passing team.

this kinda drives KaBong's statement home.

Coach Mike McCarthy on the game plan, via Michael Silver of Yahoo! Sports: "Aaron and I talked about it all week. I told him, 'You're going to have to throw the ball away two or three times, check it down a few times and make some plays with your feet, 'cause I'm gonna put my foot on the gas all day long.' He threw bullets all day."

I can't believe we are still arguing about the running game. It's pretty obvious that TT knew what he had in Starks and preferred to wait it out with him than trade a combination of picks to get Lynch. The purpose of trading for Lynch would be to win a Super Bowl. Well they did it without Lynch so by that rationale, TT made the correct move by holding on to his picks and waiting for Starks. And we also have extra draft picks to draft more pro-bowlers.

To be honest, I don't know if I'd trade Starks for Lynch straight up right now. I may be jumping the gun but I really like what Starks brings. He's not B-Jax picking up the blitz but he's pretty damn good for a rookie that spent half the season on PUP.

No way would I trade Starks for Lynch straight-up right now. Starks has barely, and I mean barely scratched the surface. Lynch is what he is - a decent/serviceable RB with chronic turd-itis that can pop up at any time. With a full offseason under his belt, Starks is going to be a ton better next season and could be a featured back.

quote:

Originally posted by CUPackFan:
I can't believe we are still arguing about the running game. It's pretty obvious that TT knew what he had in Starks and preferred to wait it out with him than trade a combination of picks to get Lynch. The purpose of trading for Lynch would be to win a Super Bowl. Well they did it without Lynch so by that rationale, TT made the correct move by holding on to his picks and waiting for Starks.

Pablo posted a few pages back that people who complained various things, including the running game, should be posting that they were wrong in this thread. My response was that the running game shouldn't be in the discussion, as Starks emerged and provided that threat that Jackson/Kuhn wasn't.

Agreed that TT was right. Before Starks emerged, I posted that [paraphrasing] "maybe Starks will emerge, but there's a greater chance that a back like Lynch would be an upgrade over Jackson than an untested rookie". Again, Ted was right. In fact, I've already posted somewhere in this thread that I was wrong about James Starks.

Also for the record, Coach and just about everyone on the board was in favor of trading for Lynch for a 4th round pick, but not a 3rd, but I don't see them Ronging it up here either.

In the end I was wrong that we should trade a draft pick for Lynch because of Starks. Ted is indeed the Master of Players and I bow down before his ultimate wisdom. But IMO I was right that we needed an upgrade at RB to win it all. None of the RBBC committee guys were given a carry during the Super Bowl. If that isn't evidence that we needed an upgrade over what we had I don't know what is. I'm glad that it was Starks and not Lynch or some other vet. Starks is a great kid with a bright future AND we kept all our draft picks.

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
But IMO I was right that we needed an upgrade at RB to win it all. None of the RBBC committee guys were given a carry during the Super Bowl. If that isn't evidence that we needed an upgrade over what we had I don't know what is.

I'm still not sure I follow. Because we abandoned the running game and still won the Superbowl means we should upgrade? See, I disagree with your statement that I highlighted. Lets say Starks injures himself at the end of the Bears game, I still think we win last Sunday because the passing game is just.that.damn.good. I don't think Starks 50 yards is what was the turning point to making the passing game work, but I do think the passing game is that dominant that is allowed the couple draw plays to work for nice gains from the rookie. I don't think Starks upgrade really was impactful in winning the game, probably secondary to QB play, defense, turnovers, special teams, then maybe running game.

I'm still open to upgrading the running game (every position save AR, TW, and CM for that matter), but this team will be successful next year based on the passing game. A stronger running game wouldn't hurt and I will certainly take it, but RB isn't even high on my (what does that matter to Ted) list of priorities for the draft.

And lastly, the Lynch argument should be put to bed. Not trading for him was the right move, and winning the Superbowl wasn't even the defining piece of evidence for that case. Those who should be posting in this thread were those with the moronic position that "you trade for those guys when your are close because "that guy" will put you over the edge, despite all costs." and "It's not like next years (blank) round pick will help us this year." That is a loser's mentality and shows little knowledge of the game of football.

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
But IMO I was right that we needed an upgrade at RB to win it all. None of the RBBC committee guys were given a carry during the Super Bowl. If that isn't evidence that we needed an upgrade over what we had I don't know what is. I'm glad that it was Starks and not Lynch or some other vet. Starks is a great kid with a bright future AND we kept all our draft picks.

1. Starks was already on the team (if not the roster) in September.

2. We won the first two games of the Super Bowl run essentially without him against a team that would've made the playoffs had we lost to them, and the team we ultimately beat for the NFC Championship. In December/January, in the cold, yada, yada, yada.

3. The fact that the other backs weren't given rushing attempts in that game is meaningless. Starks absolutely earned the carries that he received, but that does not mean we don't win the game without him. If that team could overcome the losses of Woodson, and Driver (as well as Shields and Collins) are you really prepared to argue we wouldn't have won? Given your opinion on the second Philly game, I won't be surprised.

4. The majority of posters (including myself) on this board was in favor of "doing something" about the running back position after Grant went down, but only a select few weren't willing to let events play themselves out after a trade wasn't made before jumping to what ultimately turned out to be an utterly wrong conclusion.

This despite being presented with facts for literally weeks from recent NFL history showing that not only was it possible, it (reaching the Super Bowl and even winning it without an elite running game) had already happened before.

5. And to my knowledge, you were one of the very select few that were willing to essentially give up on the season (after Neal went down) as well as continue to bemoan our running game well into the month of December which was after Starks had already begun playing.

I hope you're enjoying the win as much as I am, but let's not re-write history here.

I would post names, but coach is RIGHT. Starks was friggen drafted and on the roster. The same crew still can't fess up that Lynch would've been a huge waste. He's done next to nothing besides one 70 + TD run. I'll take a TT 3rd round pick plus.

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:

Also for the record, Coach and just about everyone on the board was in favor of trading for Lynch for a 4th round pick, but not a 3rd, but I don't see them Ronging it up here either.

Link? I never wanted to trade for the 2 two strike thug period.

Christ, write some more novels about not being wrong.

Never wanted anything to do with Marshawn Lynch, for any price. My faith that TT/MM would figure out how to get it done never waivered one bit.

Honestly, I'm feeling a little sorry for Packer fans who wrote the season off, especially the ones who did it publically. I know they all changed their tunes eventually but still...it can't possibly be as good as just letting the season unfold naturally. All that arrogant posturing, second-guessing, and general chest thumping about matters completely unknown have to detract from the overall experience.

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
Also for the record, Coach and just about everyone on the board was in favor of trading for Lynch for a 4th round pick, but not a 3rd, but I don't see them Ronging it up here either.

I never thought trading for Lynch would have been a good idea. You can look it up. I'm thinking there are a few more of the just about everyone group who were in the same camp.

Given the following:
1. Lynch is a head case.
2. Head cases can impact team chemistry.
3. The Packers just won the SB.

I'd be SHOCKED if the right move was to trade for Lynch.

And I was one who was slightly in favor of doing so. Just slightly, but I still was on that side of the fence.

I wuz wrong!!!

I never even posted this, but hell, I'm man enough to admit it.

I honestly thought we were done after we got beat in Detroit. Then we went on that crazy run, and I stopped doubting once we kicked the Bears' teeth in the first time.

My thought after the fiasco in Detroit was: This is a good team -- too bad they won't make the playoffs. It seemed like a real shame with all the wasted opportunities.

But then the next Sunday, Detroit beat Tampa Bay and the Giants fell apart with the DeSean Jackson return. All of a sudden, a door that was an inch away from slamming shut was wide open.

quote:

At least now all the Super Bowl hype will be swept away. Even with the injuries, we have so many underperformers that a winning record may prove elusive.

The person who posted the above still has not owned it.


Thats ok Aqua, your a stand up guy.

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
Also for the record, Coach and just about everyone on the board was in favor of trading for Lynch for a 4th round pick, but not a 3rd, but I don't see them Ronging it up here either.

I never thought trading for Lynch would have been a good idea. You can look it up. I'm thinking there are a few more of the just about everyone group who were in the same camp.

I never wanted Lynch. In TT and MM I trust. Always have and always will.

Como se llama "homer hoard" en espanol?

quote:

Originally posted by oldnavy:

quote:

At least now all the Super Bowl hype will be swept away. Even with the injuries, we have so many underperformers that a winning record may prove elusive.

The person who posted the above still has not owned it.

True, ON. The same poster hasn't owned any of these gems just from the past 6 weeks or so either, so don't hold your breath...

quote:

:

Yet he wasn't given the ball in Atlanta or Detroit despite being healthy.
MM is too dumb ...

quote:

:
Kuhn left out of game plan vs. ATL and DET: loss
Kuhn key part of game: Giants, Vikes, etc.: Win
THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE MM! WISE UP!

quote:

:
BEST Packer FB since Henderson.
LOVE how he gets the yard he needs even when the blocking isn't there.
Love his desire on the field, leaping players like he did against the Patriots.
WHY THE HELL CAN'T MM SEE THIS!!!!!!

quote:

:

quote:

And just like Atlanta, MM completely went away from Kuhn in short yardage.

AND THIS is even STUPIDER than his late in the game fourth and 1 play call!
Lose the ATL game because he won't run Kuhn.
Figure it out in the next game. Kuhn is reliable in short yardage and gets it done. They even revived the T formation...
Go to Detroit. Can't use that. Even with the game on the line.
Moron.

quote:

:

quote:

Well, props for calling yourself out, but when do you learn from it?

That's it in a nutshell. All these years later, I question whether MM has learned anything about being a head coach. And, yeah, I agree that if he gives up playcalling he might have a chance.

quote:

Originally posted by ammo:

quote:

Originally posted by Hungry5:

quote:

Originally posted by CJS:
Also for the record, Coach and just about everyone on the board was in favor of trading for Lynch for a 4th round pick, but not a 3rd, but I don't see them Ronging it up here either.

I never thought trading for Lynch would have been a good idea. You can look it up. I'm thinking there are a few more of the just about everyone group who were in the same camp.

I didn't way the dude either. I have never been impressed with him, and he is a proven locker room cancer.

I never wanted Lynch. In TT and MM I trust. Always have and always will.

I was kind of 50-50 on getting Lynch. I kind of wanted him, but totally understood why there were a ton of reasons not to go hard after him.

The guy I really wanted the Packers to mortgage the farm (maybe give up a 1st round pick) on was former 1500 yd. rusher D. Williams of Carolina. And of course right after me really really wanting the Packers to get him he proceeded to go on IR. That's why TT runs the team and I just sit here and watch and enjoy the results of his terrific management of the Packers.

quote:

Would you really rather be handing the ball to Kuhn/Nance instead of Lynch? If the Packers were a team still being built I could see passing on Lynch and his baggage but when you're a SB contender that lost it's feature RB a move needed to be made, especially after breaking camp with only 2 RBs on the roster.

The main objective of a defense is to take away the run and make an offense one dimensional. That's not hard to do against the Packers right now.

quote:

Shame on TT for not acquiring Lynch or even Jerome Harrison. Nobody can make me believe a RB like that wouldn't improve our team especially now that it's obvious the Packers finally realized Kuhn was not the answer as the backup RB. No carries in 2 consecutive games.

quote:

I did not say Lynch was the future. Try reading slower if that's what it takes.

We have a strong squad with a huge deficiency that will prevent us from winning in the playoffs, it might even keep us from making the playoffs.

TT's damn big window closes completely without Rodgers. We basically have a one man offense and there's way too much reliance on him.

quote:

You, because it's undeniable that Lynch would have been a major improvement over Jackson and made us a better team.

quote:

Forget the 3rd round pick cop out. That pick has no impact on the Packers current season.

this guys still thinks he is right

The main debate that involved Lynch was whether this team could get it done with Jackson as the main running back. I wanted Lynch for a reasonable price, as most posters did. When that didn't happen, I noted that Starks better be able to play, because Jackson was not an adequate starting RB. As we all learned, Starks was certainly up to the task.

Man JJSD there is a butt load of Rong in that mess.

We won it all in part because TT and MM's evaluation of Starks was accurate. Great job by them, for Starks was the ace up our sleeve. If Jackson was our starting RB throughout the playoffs, I'm not sure we win the Super Bowl. Starks was key.

Regardless of your thought, the reality remains - in today's NFL you do NOT need to have a great or even average running game to win in the regular season, go deep in the playoffs, or win the Super Bowl.

How well you pass and how well you defend the pass is significantly more correlated to success in the NFL of 2010 than anything to do with the running game. The data backs it up. Football Outsiders, and their readers, figured that out years ago.

Hence why I never bought into any of this belief that the upgrade of Lynch from Jackson was the tipping point to becoming a Super Bowl team. First, you can debate how big of an upgrade it would have been. Second and most importantly the Packers were going to go as far as Aaron Rodgers takes them. Period.

Minnesota has the best running back on earth - they went no where this year because their QB sucked, vs last year he was great. Tennessee has the second best running back on earth, sitting at home again come playoffs because they have no QB.

The NFL is a passing league. You may not like it, you may wish it was still "smashmouth" 3 yards and cloud of dust and the Green Bay sweep, but that is not the way to win in the NFL. Teams win with their QB, with their passing attack, and by defending the pass.

Would it have destroyed the future giving up a 3rd? Nope. But the risk of locker room issues were much higher than the "reward" of at best a slight upgrade for a team that does not depend on the run game anyway.

In the Super Bowl the Packers lost Driver and Woodson for the 2nd half and Shields for much of the 2nd half, and people still think that GB might not have won with Jackson as the RB? Amazing. The passing game and the defense is why this team made the playoffs and won the Super Bowl.