blah blah

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

sdfhasdlfja ;slkdfj ;lkdjf l;aksjdf fuzzy logic sldkfj saldfkj ;lsdfj laskfj over generalizations laskfj alkfjasld;fkjaskl;j

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Here's the bottom line. If you wanna sit there and cheer for your team to play mediocre football and consistently play down to the level of clearly inferior teams, go ahead and do that. Is that what Lombardi preached? Is that what Mike McCarthy preaches?

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Here's the bottom line. If you wanna sit there and cheer for your team to play mediocre football and consistently play down to the level of clearly inferior teams, go ahead and do that. Is that what Lombardi preached? Is that what Mike McCarthy preaches?
This is the same argument people have about the Grant v Starks debate. Starks is clearly the superior player, but people like Grant, because they identify with him. Most people are themselves not spectacularly talented or well endowed with god given skills. So they tend to hold that against the winners, the people who are better than them. They tend to identify with the underdog. That's cool. Especially if your team is an underdog. But guess what. The Packers are the world champions. We are the Goliath right now. I'm not gonna sit here and root for us to act like the underdogs, just because most of the fans are themselves mediocre in real life. That doesn't satisfy me emotionally. But then I myself am not mediocre in real life.
This is the same with all the Favre worshippers. Yeah, he always melted down in the playoffs. But people still worshipped him, even though Aaron Rodgers was clearly the better QB. Why? Because they identified with him for emotional reasons. They hated Arodge, because he knows how to shower regularly. They called him gay. Ted Thompson too. Why? Because Ted and Aaron are not dumb, scuzzy, uneducated white trash. Plain and simple. They don't care how good of a player he is. They care about how similar he is to themselves, as a person.

Originally Posted by: nerdmann 

Grant is productive even when there isn't a hole, Starks can go out and find them if one develops. Different and both contribute. That is why we want to keep both.

Originally Posted by: Dexter_Sinister 

Sometimes you just have to resurrect a classic.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 

One thing you don’t see from Grant is dancing around before he makes a cut. Starks has been doing entirely too much of this the last two games. When Starks finds a hole he is obviously more explosive than Grant, but his eagerness to bust off a big play is also a drawback (Favre, anyone?). Grant is less of a playmaker (not to say he doesn’t have great plays) than he is a decision maker, sometimes to his downfall. That said, a Ryan Grant decision usually nets at least one positive yard. Thus far Starks has been either very exciting to watch, or worth a negative yard or two.

Originally Posted by: Silentio 

At the risk of diverting nerdmann’s fleeting attention away from the pressing question of how the loss to AZ is an example of letting teams hang around -- this is a great point about Grant and Starks. One thing you don’t see from Grant is dancing around before he makes a cut. Starks has been doing entirely too much of this the last two games. When Starks finds a hole he is obviously more explosive than Grant, but his eagerness to bust off a big play is also a drawback (Favre, anyone?). Grant is less of a playmaker (not to say he doesn’t have great plays) than he is a decision maker, sometimes to his downfall. That said, a Ryan Grant decision usually nets at least one positive yard. Thus far Starks has been either very exciting to watch, or worth a negative yard or two.

Starks is very fun to watch in the passing game though, eh?

Originally Posted by: Silentio