Bad News Bob strikes again.
Admittedly, they could have a better team and yet most likely a worse record than last year. Every team has its warts, Bob. Lighten up.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Well, Bad Bob is being Bad Bob. Although I think is analysis may be slanted on the negative...as usual...but he makes some good points...as usual. The turnover stat was interesting and perhaps a bit forboding. AR not looking as sharp as expected in camp is another little bit of worry.
Hopefully, the team can start off strong and shake off the monkey from their last loss to the NYGs.
Just remember, take it one game at a time.
Hopefully, the team can start off strong and shake off the monkey from their last loss to the NYGs.
Just remember, take it one game at a time.
McGinn is in the business of writing reality checks. It isn't too surprising that he'd predict that GB won't repeat a 15-1 season (has any team, ever?) or that the Packers won't go to the Super Bowl (only 1 will go from the NFC, and a lot of luck is always involved for whoever does). He's done a pretty good job of pointing out the obvious worries. If you want to read about the obvious hopes, you'll have to read someone else. That's just not McGinn. He leaves that to others.
Personally, I don't mind at all the Packers getting negative press. They thrive on it. This is a team that needs to play with a chip on their shoulder. They play their best when they think they have something to prove, when people think they are beat before they even play the games. At least when King picked the Packers to win it all this year, he also predicted the Bears would win the NFC Central.
If Green Bay does return to the Super Bowl, pointing out all these worries will only make it all that much sweeter. As for me, I just hope that the Packers can beat San Francisco this week. That would be great. It's fun to be a little nervous about the upcoming game.
Personally, I don't mind at all the Packers getting negative press. They thrive on it. This is a team that needs to play with a chip on their shoulder. They play their best when they think they have something to prove, when people think they are beat before they even play the games. At least when King picked the Packers to win it all this year, he also predicted the Bears would win the NFC Central.
If Green Bay does return to the Super Bowl, pointing out all these worries will only make it all that much sweeter. As for me, I just hope that the Packers can beat San Francisco this week. That would be great. It's fun to be a little nervous about the upcoming game.
quote:Originally posted by saguaro:
McGinn is in the business of writingreality checksclick stories to increase revenue for the Journal Sentinal.
FTFY.
While any team in the NFL if they lose any of their blue chip players (e.g. Rodgers, Matthews, Raji, Jennings) are a completely different team, no team in the NFL is better stacked in talent and on paper then the Packers. And no, this isn't the Dallas Cowboys with a narrow window and a crock owner who can't run a team.
TT isn't perfect but he's one of the best GM's in the business. And he's amassed one of the most talented if not THE most talented team in the league. And at 28, again barring serious injury, Rodgers and GB should have a wide open air carrier sized door/window for the next 5-6 years.
The problem for our friend Bob is that writing that reality won't get many clicks or generate much
So, he's gotta write pieces to get clicks, get revenue going, and fans in a flurry of hand wringing and commenting on pieces like this he crapped out.
That's not journalism. That's trying to find something, anything, of a mole hill to make a mountain out of.
When has pre-season game performance ever boded out well to the regular reason in predicting how well a team will play or for that matter a player ? How many, through countless examples and countless seasons have we seen 4-0 pre-season teams go on to a 3-13 season and an 0-4 team end up 13-3 in the regular season?
Let me know when Nick Perry starts sucking more. So far, he hasn't lived up to Bob's analysis.
Now this Bad Bob at his finest:
Well, Mike Holmgren's team turned it over 14 times in five exhibition games that year before posting by far the worst turnover differential of his career (minus-11) in the regular season. The wild-card playoff loss in San Francisco that included four giveaways ended his career in Green Bay.
He makes it sound as tho Holmgren was fired because the Packers 2 many turnovers. Holmy could have been coach for life if he wanted it. And Bob knows this.
Well, Mike Holmgren's team turned it over 14 times in five exhibition games that year before posting by far the worst turnover differential of his career (minus-11) in the regular season. The wild-card playoff loss in San Francisco that included four giveaways ended his career in Green Bay.
He makes it sound as tho Holmgren was fired because the Packers 2 many turnovers. Holmy could have been coach for life if he wanted it. And Bob knows this.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
He makes it sound as tho Holmgren was fired because the Packers 2 many turnovers. Holmy could have been coach for life if he wanted it. And Bob knows this.
That was some weirdness right there, no doubt. Because of Holmgren's last year, this could be McCarthy's? Is that the gist of it? Coaches have last years, and all good things must end, so we better not forget it?
Because Bert Freaking Fervre was a turnover machine, now Rodgers will be?
Yeah Bob, we'll be sure to keep that in mind.
My question is who got better in the league? Every team battles the salary cap, free agency, etc. The reality is the teams with the best GM's who manage their cap well will be competitive every year and we are one of those few. Having the best player in the league at the most important position is pretty sweet as well.
I see us on the north side of 10 wins.
I see us on the north side of 10 wins.
That's weak sauce journalism.quote:The No. 1 offense didn't often sweep down the field in majestic fashion to beat the defense in end-of-game scenarios. Nelson was a spectacular sight to behold over the last six weeks, but Rodgers probably didn't complete as many phenomenal passes and his receivers didn't make as many phenomenal catches as they have in summers past
10-6, 13-3, 16-0, 9-7... who really cares. Win the division and then win the Super Bowl.
quote:An improved Walden might be disruptive off the bench.
NO, that never happens! Impossible to develop Walden.
Packerboi is correct on this. I don't know when it first started, but every so often Bad News Bob writes these horror stories to get the masses all riled up and the page clicks to come rolling in.
I like most of what Bob writes, but these speculative pieces are not his strong suit. I love the articles that focus on perspectives from scouts and others across the league because you don't see that too often. This...not so much.
I like most of what Bob writes, but these speculative pieces are not his strong suit. I love the articles that focus on perspectives from scouts and others across the league because you don't see that too often. This...not so much.
He wrote a pretty complimentary piece about the possibility of a potential Packer dynasty not long ago so he's not always Bad Bob. It seems like a pretty silly analysis to me, but media opinions will have absolutely no impact on the performance of the team and it doesn't really matter.
Anyone think McGinn=Kworst? Sure seems like it.
quote:Originally posted by packerboi:
When has pre-season game performance ever boded out well to the regular reason in predicting how well a team will play or for that matter a player ? How many, through countless examples and countless seasons have we seen 4-0 pre-season teams go on to a 3-13 season and an 0-4 team end up 13-3 in the regular season?
McGinn scarcely even mentioned the pre-season, let alone based his season prediction on it. His analysis drew on the many things that went right last season, the few things that went horribly wrong last season, the injuries/personnel shifts that have happened in the interim, and a few broader historical indicators. What else is he supposed to go by?
Predicting double-digit wins, a division crown and a playoff run that stops short of the Super Bowl isn't exactly a Mayan calendar doomsday scenario. I'm sure there are plenty of bobos out there predicting that the Packers will go 16-0 and blaze a trail of shutouts to Lombardi #5. Please enjoy them; some of us prefer McGinn's clear-eyed takes to 24/7 duckies and bunnies.
McGinn has been covering football for a long time, he knows the preseason is meaningless. The Packers are being regarded as a SB favorite by the majority of sportswriters and other media members, McGinn sees an opportunity to be the lone dissenting voice. If the Packers flop then he will look like the genius with amazing foresight. And if they win it all then he can throw out some glowing articles and all will be forgotten. He's an opportunist, nothing more.
Prior to last season he predicted another SB win and a potential dynasty. Easy to see the wind changing with the performance of the defense last year, but they went 15-1 with that D.
I think their record will be a bit worse and there will be regular season struggles, but they just need to get in to the post season.
I think their record will be a bit worse and there will be regular season struggles, but they just need to get in to the post season.
I didn't read the article but what is with all the predictions crap in sports in general? I want to hear sports news, team news, player news when I'm looking for news about my team. I don't consider sportswriters to be oracles or soothsayers so why do they always go there? I want the facts and updates, stories about players, game strategy, strengths/weaknesses. I don't want to hear every sports pundit's take in Sept on the chances of this or that team making the playoffs, and especially who they think 6 months from now will appear in a SB who's participants are largely determined by attrition and luck.
instead of predict predict predict gimme report report report - but we know which one is easier.
GBP is playing SF this weekend. There's no tomorrow until that game is over.
(stepping off soapbox)
instead of predict predict predict gimme report report report - but we know which one is easier.
GBP is playing SF this weekend. There's no tomorrow until that game is over.
(stepping off soapbox)
quote:Originally posted by Chronic Hobbit:
Packerboi is correct on this. I don't know when it first started, but every so often Bad News Bob writes these horror stories to get the masses all riled up and the page clicks to come rolling in.
I like most of what Bob writes, but these speculative pieces are not his strong suit. I love the articles that focus on perspectives from scouts and others across the league because you don't see that too often. This...not so much.
Jeebus, some people aren't happy unless writers are blowing rose-colored smoke up their butts with every word. Did you miss this section:
"The Packers certainly are capable of winning the Super Bowl, just as they have been in each of the last three seasons. There's no reason to think this team won't remain a serious contender for several more seasons as long as Thompson, Mike McCarthy and Aaron Rodgers perform as well in the future as they have in the past.
Green Bay should repeat as NFC North champion, prevailing over Detroit and Chicago in a tight three-team race." ?
He makes some good points about the defense and Newhouse yet still points to team strengths also. It's a pretty even-handed piece overall with the prediction du jour stuff thrown in that's a popular read.
must... endure... the... AGONY! 
what the hell happened to pablo anyway?
what the hell happened to pablo anyway?
quote:Originally posted by Tdog:
what the hell happened to pablo anyway?
Rare case of drowning - he fell head- first into his own bag of douche
quote:Originally posted by Satori:quote:Originally posted by Tdog:
what the hell happened to pablo anyway?
Rare case of drowning - he fell head- first into his own bag of douche
WOW!!
quote:Originally posted by Herschel:
Jeebus, some people aren't happy unless writers are blowing rose-colored smoke up their butts with every word. Did you miss this section:
"The Packers certainly are capable of winning the Super Bowl, just as they have been in each of the last three seasons. There's no reason to think this team won't remain a serious contender for several more seasons as long as Thompson, Mike McCarthy and Aaron Rodgers perform as well in the future as they have in the past.
Green Bay should repeat as NFC North champion, prevailing over Detroit and Chicago in a tight three-team race." ?
He makes some good points about the defense and Newhouse yet still points to team strengths also. It's a pretty even-handed piece overall with the prediction du jour stuff thrown in that's a popular read.
Seriously? I'm the last person that needs rose-colored smoke up my ass. I'm as critical of this team as anyone, but Bob is reaching on a lot of schit here. Comparing the 2012 team to the 1998 edition? Other than turnovers in the preseason and a franchise QB (who couldn't be more different btw), what do they possibly have in common? Who makes that comparison unless they're digging for schit that isn't there?
One thing I remember about the '98 Packers was the decimated secondary. In pre-season they were desperate enough to take a converted RB in Chris Darkins and try him at CB. That did not go well.
Darren Sharper took over for Eugene Robinson at FS. That was a disaster for about 2 years, and the loss of Doug Evans to free agency also hurt. Hard to believe Sharper may actually have a shot at the Pro Football HOF after how bad he was in '98/'99, but to his credit he did have some excellent years after that. Craig Newsome came back from a knee injury and wasn't what he had been before that.
The '12 secondary is questionable, but I think there is more talent there than the '98 squad had. The real story of the failure of that '98 team was the bad secondary. From the debacles vs. Randy Moss and the horrendous defense they played on the last pass vs. San Fran in the playoffs, the secondary (and the refs) cost the Pack a chance to move to the 2nd round.
Darren Sharper took over for Eugene Robinson at FS. That was a disaster for about 2 years, and the loss of Doug Evans to free agency also hurt. Hard to believe Sharper may actually have a shot at the Pro Football HOF after how bad he was in '98/'99, but to his credit he did have some excellent years after that. Craig Newsome came back from a knee injury and wasn't what he had been before that.
The '12 secondary is questionable, but I think there is more talent there than the '98 squad had. The real story of the failure of that '98 team was the bad secondary. From the debacles vs. Randy Moss and the horrendous defense they played on the last pass vs. San Fran in the playoffs, the secondary (and the refs) cost the Pack a chance to move to the 2nd round.
The 2012 secondary is head & shoulders better than 1998.
The rest of the league is lucky Nick Collins can't play anymore or we would be steam-rolling teams weekly.
The rest of the league is lucky Nick Collins can't play anymore or we would be steam-rolling teams weekly.
quote:Originally posted by Ryan Grant:quote:Originally posted by Satori:quote:Originally posted by Tdog:
what the hell happened to pablo anyway?
Rare case of drowning - he fell head- first into his own bag of douche
WOW!!
Be happy, you seem to have great balance
I remember the Jerry Rice playoff fumble the most......oh no that is Jerry Rice. No fumble. Thank you for replay in 2012. That was a fumble.
@Boris,
I've been thinking about this point a lot recently. If Nick Collins and Bishop are healthy and playing this team would be devistatingly good. Without them they're still capable of winning a SB.
The flip side is that if Collins is still playing TT likely isn't spending 6 picks on defensive help. If Perry, Worthy, Daniels, Manning, Hayward go on to have solid careers with the Packers then the sting of losing Collins is softened a bit.
I've been thinking about this point a lot recently. If Nick Collins and Bishop are healthy and playing this team would be devistatingly good. Without them they're still capable of winning a SB.
The flip side is that if Collins is still playing TT likely isn't spending 6 picks on defensive help. If Perry, Worthy, Daniels, Manning, Hayward go on to have solid careers with the Packers then the sting of losing Collins is softened a bit.
Well considering the last meaningful game they played was a depression, a recession doesnt seem all that bad
quote:The rest of the league is lucky Nick Collins can't play anymore or we would be steam-rolling teams weekly.
I think there's a lot of grains of truth in that statement.
quote:Originally posted by ChilliJon:
@Boris,
The flip side is that if Collins is still playing TT likely isn't spending 6 picks on defensive help. If Perry, Worthy, Daniels, Manning, Hayward go on to have solid careers with the Packers then the sting of losing Collins is softened a bit.
not so sure about this. TT seems to have his draft board set up to get the best available player.
i think we may have seen this years draft even if Collins was still here and even if things had been better last year with the D..
Unconscionable.quote:Originally posted by Johnny Boy:
I remember the Jerry Rice playoff fumble the most......oh no that is Jerry Rice. No fumble. Thank you for replay in 2012. That was a fumble.
Beyond words. One of the worst calls I have ever witnessed.
quote:Originally posted by Boris:
The 2012 secondary is head & shoulders better than 1998.
The rest of the league is lucky Nick Collins can't play anymore or we would be steam-rolling teams weekly.
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
The Packers are being regarded as a SB favorite by the majority of sportswriters and other media members, McGinn sees an opportunity to be the lone dissenting voice.
Hardly a lone dissenter. Watching the NFL Network yesterday, 2 out of 3 guys picked the Bears to win the division, as does Mike Greenberg(YES!!!).
quote:Originally posted by Tdog:
I didn't read the article but what is with all the predictions crap in sports in general? I want to hear sports news, team news, player news when I'm looking for news about my team. I don't consider sportswriters to be oracles or soothsayers so why do they always go there? I want the facts and updates, stories about players, game strategy, strengths/weaknesses. I don't want to hear every sports pundit's take in Sept on the chances of this or that team making the playoffs, and especially who they think 6 months from now will appear in a SB who's participants are largely determined by attrition and luck.
instead of predict predict predict gimme report report report - but we know which one is easier.
GBP is playing SF this weekend. There's no tomorrow until that game is over.
(stepping off soapbox)
Completely agree.
quote:Originally posted by Grave Digger:
The Packers are being regarded as a SB favorite by the majority of sportswriters and other media members, McGinn sees an opportunity to be the lone dissenting voice.
He's not even the lone dissenting voice at his own paper. Nickel picked SF to win the NFC. Hunt is the only one of five at the J-S who picked GB to go the distance.
With the possible inclusion of OL play, I think the Packer's success depends most on secondary play and front seven, especially defensive line, penetration (pass rush).
I didn't find McGinn's article all that pessimistic. Expectations are usually (too) high at the start of the season, and McGinn's article tempers the typical hype. JMO
I hate reading predictions. I prefer player analysis (which is great during training camp), and stories about the players that we don't already know (like first reading about Driver's story, or about Woodson's donation to the University of Michigan). I typically skip over everything else.
Predicting anything right now is stupid and pointless. I almost prefer the Packers not to be picked for anything. And don't get me started on Power Rankings. Why in the world do we take the stupidest thing in college football (the polls) and apply it to the NFL, where they are completely unnecessary?
Predicting anything right now is stupid and pointless. I almost prefer the Packers not to be picked for anything. And don't get me started on Power Rankings. Why in the world do we take the stupidest thing in college football (the polls) and apply it to the NFL, where they are completely unnecessary?