Zero2Cool
14 years ago

Pittsburgh Steelers (2008)
Believe it or not: 0 notable acquisitions in the two previous years. Straight up build through draft

"Packers_Finland" wrote:



that explains why they are not a good team.
UserPostedImage
Packers_Finland
14 years ago

Pittsburgh Steelers (2008)
Believe it or not: 0 notable acquisitions in the two previous years. Straight up build through draft

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



that explains why they are not a good team.

"Packers_Finland" wrote:



Yeah, exactly. I mean, how much do you have to suck to go 3-1 with your 3rd & 4th string QBs?
This is a placeholder
coltonja
14 years ago

Pittsburgh Steelers (2008)
Believe it or not: 0 notable acquisitions in the two previous years. Straight up build through draft

"Packers_Finland" wrote:



that explains why they are not a good team.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Yeah, exactly. I mean, how much do you have to suck to go 3-1 with your 3rd & 4th string QBs?

"Packers_Finland" wrote:



+1 Finny

+1 to NSD too for telling yooper to show some evidence.

@yooper I will back up NSD and say that you can make any statement you want on this board, as you are entitled to your opinion, but you do need to have evidence when making statements about "facts." For example, you have been saying lately how the last teams have gone to the Big Game because of free agency and trades, yet you gave no examples or data for that statement. All I am saying is if you are trying to make a factual point like that I would give evidence so we can see if your facts are facts.
UserPostedImage
Thanks to pack93z for the sig!!!
Greg C.
14 years ago
Going back one more year to the 2006 Colts, I'm pretty sure that their only free agent signing was kicker Adam Vinatieri--a player the Packers pursued but lost out on because a dome is a much easier place for a kicker to play in.

Before that was the 2005 Steelers--again, few or no free agent signings.

Before that, you get into the Patriot years, which are a little more complicated. In 2001 they came out of nowhere to win it all, after having signed several low to mid-level free agents during the previous couple years. But before they won it in 2003, they signed Rodney Harrison, and in 2004 they added linebacker Rosevelt Colvin and got Corey Dillon in a trade. They did not win any championships after signing Adalius Thomas and Randy Moss.
blank
mi_keys
14 years ago

Possibly some teams have won a Superbowl without having to roll the dice and adding a piece to the puzzle in the offseason but I tend to believe that would be the exception rather than the rule.

"yooperfan" wrote:



You have made this and similar statements dozens of times since I've been a member of this site. So why don't you put your money where your mouth is, do a little research, and come up with a few paragraphs giving evidence for your stance? People on this site have provided plenty of counterexamples to your thesis, so the burden of proof is now on you.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



No it isn't, I carry no burdens.

"yooperfan" wrote:



It is if you want anyone to take your opinions on this issue seriously. Then again maybe you don't care, and I wouldn't hold that against you.

Still, the balance of the evidence is against you. I seem to remember from one of those "America's Games" series about one of the Steelers teams from the 70s hearing that literally not one player on their roster had ever been on another NFL team. I could be mistaken in it being that extreme, but even though that was a different era it was a dynasty built through the draft.

Others have pointed out plenty of other examples as well. So it seems that you have it backwards; it's the rule, not the exception.
Born and bred a cheesehead
K_Buz
14 years ago
I don't get the argument here. There are obviously advantages to building from the draft. I get that. I see the advantage. But why does it appear that the ones making this argument can't see the advantage of picking up a player that might get the team over the last hurdle?

I'm not suggesting you pull a Ditka and mortgage your team's future for one guy that might make a difference. But in a case like Moss or Lynch, there was hardly a price to pay. (I am not suggesting that we should have made a play for Moss, just that the Vikings felt they had a need at WR and they took a chance).

If what I'm reading is that if you have a build from within philosophy, then you can't make a FA pickup then I am calling BS. Every team has a build from within attitude, but that doesn't mean that if a player is out there at a reasonable price, that a build from within team can't make a play for said player.
dhazer
14 years ago

Pittsburgh Steelers (2008)
Believe it or not: 0 notable acquisitions in the two previous years. Straight up build through draft

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



that explains why they are not a good team.

"Packers_Finland" wrote:



Thats because they win by defense, look at last year when they lost 2 starters on defense, they lost to the likes of the Chiefs, Raiders and Browns.

This year they are 3-1 because of the defense. Before you say anything look and you will see 3 or 4 starters were free agents they picked up years before.

And also if you look at their previous drafts you will see they don't have a good record on that.
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be šŸ™‚ (PS, Zero should charge for this)
UserPostedImage
dhazer
14 years ago

Possibly some teams have won a Superbowl without having to roll the dice and adding a piece to the puzzle in the offseason but I tend to believe that would be the exception rather than the rule.

"mi_keys" wrote:



You have made this and similar statements dozens of times since I've been a member of this site. So why don't you put your money where your mouth is, do a little research, and come up with a few paragraphs giving evidence for your stance? People on this site have provided plenty of counterexamples to your thesis, so the burden of proof is now on you.

"yooperfan" wrote:



No it isn't, I carry no burdens.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:



It is if you want anyone to take your opinions on this issue seriously. Then again maybe you don't care, and I wouldn't hold that against you.

Still, the balance of the evidence is against you. I seem to remember from one of those "America's Games" series about one of the Steelers teams from the 70s hearing that literally not one player on their roster had ever been on another NFL team. I could be mistaken in it being that extreme, but even though that was a different era it was a dynasty built through the draft.

Others have pointed out plenty of other examples as well. So it seems that you have it backwards; it's the rule, not the exception.

"yooperfan" wrote:




MI the difference from back then to todays game is very simple. It is called free agency šŸ˜ž
Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be šŸ™‚ (PS, Zero should charge for this)
UserPostedImage
Rockmolder
14 years ago

Pittsburgh Steelers (2008)
Believe it or not: 0 notable acquisitions in the two previous years. Straight up build through draft

"dhazer" wrote:



that explains why they are not a good team.

"Zero2Cool" wrote:



Thats because they win by defense, look at last year when they lost 2 starters on defense, they lost to the likes of the Chiefs, Raiders and Browns.

This year they are 3-1 because of the defense. Before you say anything look and you will see 3 or 4 starters were free agents they picked up years before.

And also if you look at their previous drafts you will see they don't have a good record on that.

"Packers_Finland" wrote:



So, erm, that means that they handle FA exactly like the Packers then, don't they?

I mean, the guys from years before are Woodson, Chillar and Pickett for us.

But I agree. You can get to the SB while completely ignoring FA, but that is quite hard. FA and trades are a perfect way to plug some holes. Not to drastically improve your team, Redskins style, but to add depth to a shallow position or add a veteran who can step in when needed. Maybe even start with the problems we have at safety.

Make the occasional splash to really upgrade a position. Thinking Charles Woodson here.

Lastly, before freaking out about how the Packers are doing, check out the 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers . Quite some similarities right there. Very streaky play, some similar injuries like at the RB position.
mi_keys
14 years ago

Possibly some teams have won a Superbowl without having to roll the dice and adding a piece to the puzzle in the offseason but I tend to believe that would be the exception rather than the rule.

"dhazer" wrote:



You have made this and similar statements dozens of times since I've been a member of this site. So why don't you put your money where your mouth is, do a little research, and come up with a few paragraphs giving evidence for your stance? People on this site have provided plenty of counterexamples to your thesis, so the burden of proof is now on you.

"mi_keys" wrote:



No it isn't, I carry no burdens.

"yooperfan" wrote:



It is if you want anyone to take your opinions on this issue seriously. Then again maybe you don't care, and I wouldn't hold that against you.

Still, the balance of the evidence is against you. I seem to remember from one of those "America's Games" series about one of the Steelers teams from the 70s hearing that literally not one player on their roster had ever been on another NFL team. I could be mistaken in it being that extreme, but even though that was a different era it was a dynasty built through the draft.

Others have pointed out plenty of other examples as well. So it seems that you have it backwards; it's the rule, not the exception.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:




MI the difference from back then to todays game is very simple. It is called free agency :(

"yooperfan" wrote:



I'm well aware, though back then you had trades more often than you do now. I'm also not purposing we ignore free agency. I would like to see us get some safety depth at the very least but I just don't know who.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Fan Shout
dfosterf (18m) : The white background beta was hard to read, especially the quotes
dfosterf (34m) : Hopefully the color scheme remains the same
dfosterf (41m) : *Friday*
dfosterf (44m) : 100 million would be 539 million as of Fridsy
dfosterf (44m) : Heck, they could have taken a hundred milliion and invested in DAVE inc. last year (semi random, humor, but real)
dfosterf (56m) : Beer brat and ticket is where the money comes from
dfosterf (1h) : The 40th is Titletown Tech itself. This is a pet project of both Ed Policy and Mark Murphy
Zero2Cool (1h) : New site coming along nicely. The editor is better than what we have here. Oh yeah!
dfosterf (1h) : No profit that I know of. 0 for 40
dfosterf (1h) : The woke reference has to do with the makeup and oftentimes objectives of the companies they invested in
packerfanoutwest (1h) : beer and brats woke? say whom?
beast (1h) : I don't want to get into politics, but how is, beers and brats considered to be "woke"? Food is food...
beast (1h) : That being said, I'm not saying all 100% should be that way, but not surprised if majority are Wisconsin based
beast (1h) : And if everyone has heard of them, then it it probably has less growth potential and less community based
beast (1h) : Well isn't the investing person supposed to invest the money?
dfosterf (1h) : I swear if I were to discover that one of them has invented a virtue signalling transmitter I will not be surprised, lol
dfosterf (1h) : 39 companies so far that I bet no one has ever heard of.
dfosterf (1h) : -Not saying woke, but should- borderline philanthopist venture capital excercise
dfosterf (1h) : Well for one, they are pouring resources into Title Town Tech. Investing beer, brat, hot dog, ticket money into what is pretty much...
beast (8h) : Wow, 95% drop in investment revenue? Would be interesting to hear the details of why...
dfosterf (25-Jul) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : In your face, HBO!
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: ā€œA great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.ā€
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : *years
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates ā€œmany Packers gamesā€ being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
dfosterf (25-Jul) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Maybe a low flying drone
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Bad week for people whose names are alliterations
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hulk Hogan gone too.
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Oh, it's toe injury
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Hope it's not serious. that would stink
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Sounds like an ankle not a knee for Fields
dfosterf (24-Jul) : Ya Flaccp on Browns
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright Ā© 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.comā„¢. All Rights Reserved.