Zero2Cool
13 years ago

Nerd, Non, and I are always around for our expert advice and vast knowledge of all things. =d>

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 


Thus such short conversations.
UserPostedImage
DakotaT
13 years ago

Thus such short conversations.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 



The truly intellectual have no need for essay long verbal/written masturbation. It is not worthy of the time spent.
UserPostedImage
Zero2Cool
13 years ago

The truly intellectual have no need for essay long verbal/written masturbation. It is not worthy of the time spent.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 



I used less words to make my point. 🙂
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
In all fairness to Donald Driver, I don't think any of the receivers cut in the preseason would have had significantly higher production than he has had thus far. Heck, Rodgers hit 12 different receivers this week alone. But that was basically my point all along. Since it was likely that Driver would slide steadily down the real depth chart (albeit not the official one), why not give one of our other young guys a chance? The rookie would be significantly cheaper, and retaining him would prevent his being signed by another team. As Randall Cobb proved, a rookie can step in and contribute his first day. A Gurley or West might not have lit the world on fire, but it's doubtful his production would have been significantly lower than Driver's either.

Overall, the production of our receivers individually is probably going to decline this year, simply because there are so many people to throw to. I think that's a good thing. I would rather have eight receivers with 500 yards than one receiver with 1800 yards and seven others with 300 yards apiece.
UserPostedImage
PackerTraxx
13 years ago
The Packer's hand may be forced next year. We have some important players to sign so we can use the money DD is making to help with that cause. I like DD but I think it is getting "time".
Why is Jerry Kramer not in the Hall of Fame?
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
13 years ago

In all fairness to Donald Driver, I don't think any of the receivers cut in the preseason would have had significantly higher production than he has had thus far. Heck, Rodgers hit 12 different receivers this week alone. But that was basically my point all along. Since it was likely that Driver would slide steadily down the real depth chart (albeit not the official one), why not give one of our other young guys a chance? The rookie would be significantly cheaper, and retaining him would prevent his being signed by another team. As Randall Cobb proved, a rookie can step in and contribute his first day. A Gurley or West might not have lit the world on fire, but it's doubtful his production would have been significantly lower than Driver's either.

Overall, the production of our receivers individually is probably going to decline this year, simply because there are so many people to throw to. I think that's a good thing. I would rather have eight receivers with 500 yards than one receiver with 1800 yards and seven others with 300 yards apiece.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 



I respected your opinion then and now.
I felt the slip was due to injury not age and that he would bounce back and put up numbers similar to what Jordy has done this year. West & Co most likely would not have done that this year. Unfortunately it does not appear that he will. But it is only week 5. JJ had a breakout game this past week. there is still hope for Donald to have his big game too.
UserPostedImage
wpr
  • wpr
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
13 years ago

Nice addition, wpr. Just a hint: if you enclose your tables in one of the tags accessible with the UserPostedImage button, you don't have to use dots to maintain the columns, because it uses a fixed-width font. You can just type up your tables in a plain text editor (like Notepad), using the spacebar to line things up, and then paste it into your post.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 




I used the link for the defensive stats. It does make a cleaner post. Like I said I typed the "code][/code] words but I didn't go tot he drop down box and it was a mess.
Maybe one of the other formats will do it but the first one or two wouldn't let me bold any of the lines. Something for me to work on in the future.
UserPostedImage
zombieslayer
13 years ago

In all fairness to Donald Driver, I don't think any of the receivers cut in the preseason would have had significantly higher production than he has had thus far. Heck, Rodgers hit 12 different receivers this week alone. But that was basically my point all along. Since it was likely that Driver would slide steadily down the real depth chart (albeit not the official one), why not give one of our other young guys a chance? The rookie would be significantly cheaper, and retaining him would prevent his being signed by another team. As Randall Cobb proved, a rookie can step in and contribute his first day. A Gurley or West might not have lit the world on fire, but it's doubtful his production would have been significantly lower than Driver's either.

Overall, the production of our receivers individually is probably going to decline this year, simply because there are so many people to throw to. I think that's a good thing. I would rather have eight receivers with 500 yards than one receiver with 1800 yards and seven others with 300 yards apiece.

Originally Posted by: Nonstopdrivel 



Cobb is no normal rookie. He was his college team's entire O when he played in college.

Most rookie WRs suck, even WRs who go on to be pretty damn good WRs. WRs take longer to develop than other positions. Can you think of any NFL team that has a starting rookie WR by choice (I mean,not due to injury)?
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
earthquake
13 years ago
Atlanta has a starting rookie WR by choice, but yeah, I agree with your point. Generally top 15 WR's start, but other than that, not so much.
blank
Nonstopdrivel
13 years ago
I thought it was obvious from my post that I wasn't anticipating a Gurley or West would be a starter. Fifth on the depth chart was my expectation. 😝
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (9m) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (21m) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (31m) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (51m) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (1h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (1h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (1h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (1h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (1h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (2h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (3h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (3h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (4h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (4h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (4h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (4h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (4h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (4h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (4h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (4h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (4h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (4h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (4h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (4h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (4h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (5h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (5h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (5h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (5h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (5h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (5h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
packerfanoutwest (5h) : falcons are already ahead of us
beast (5h) : Packers will get in
beast (5h) : If Packers lose the rest of their games and Falcons win the rest of theirs, they could pass us... but not gonna happen
packerfanoutwest (5h) : they still are in the playoffs
packerfanoutwest (5h) : If Packers lose the remaining games,,,,at 10-7
Zero2Cool (7h) : We can say it. We don't play.
Mucky Tundra (8h) : But to say they are in is looking past the Saints
Mucky Tundra (8h) : That said, their odds are very favorable with a >99% chance of making the playoffs entering this week's games
Mucky Tundra (8h) : Packers are not in and have not clinched a playoff spot.
buckeyepackfan (9h) : Packers are in, they need to keep winning to improve their seed#.
Mucky Tundra (18h) : Getting help would have been nice, but helping ourselves should always be the plan
beast (18h) : Too bad Seahawks couldn't beat Vikings
bboystyle (19h) : We just need to win Monday night and were in
Mucky Tundra (22h) : Or ties, but let's be real here
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
21m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

48m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.