Pack93z
12 years ago
Sorry.. but how much stock do we take in McGinn's chosen whipping boys of camp?

He writes a daily column of ups and downs through his eyes.. and he looks for takes that are going to draw people to read his writings.

Basically.. it is a his living to stir the pot.. and the exact reason I don't take much stock in a ton of their takes. They are being paid to increase readership.. I would rather read a bloggers take of camp because they have a passion for it than someone that is being paid to cover and quasi forced to turn out articles.

Basically it is hard to distinguish their true opinions from their trying to throw something at the wall and see if it sticks type mentality to drawn in the readers. It is not that they don't know the game or can evaluate.. it is that it takes to much effort to parse their true view from what they fluff to draw attention.

Simply put.. they have little to no accountability on there output.. other than how many hits they get or papers they sell.

In other words.. other then them collecting quotes via interviews.. I value their input less than some of the very good bloggers and football people that are here and elsewhere on the net.

Example:

Porky88 > Mcginn and the other beat reporters.




"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
play2win
12 years ago
James Starks has a lot to prove, still. It's just a fact. He has to improve his pass protection, become a more consistent rusher, and a better pass blocker. Maybe even more importantly, he has to become more reliable in his availability. He can't be riding the hot tub. If he can prove himself in these four areas, he'll be everything we want him to be as a starting RB. The guy shows great potential, and I am a big fan, wanting him to do well. Hopefully, he puts it all together this season.
porky88
12 years ago
McGinn’s well respected around the league. Personally, I value his input. He doesn’t stir the pot without reasoning, but this is an eyebrow raiser. I'm guessing this is about Starks’ work ethic and not his character. I guess you could consider them one in the same, though. I wonder if this was an attempt to motivate him. Perhaps the Packers purposely leaked something to McGinn in hopes Starks caught wind of it. It’s probably a long shot, but teams have used the media in the past. For example, Tedy Bruschi called Chad Johnson out last year. That was obviously a deliberate attempt to light a fire under him. Of course, it failed.
nerdmann
12 years ago

McGinn’s well respected around the league. Personally, I value his input. He doesn’t stir the pot without reasoning, but this is an eyebrow raiser. I'm guessing this is about Starks’ work ethic and not his character. I guess you could consider them one in the same, though. I wonder if this was an attempt to motivate him. Perhaps the Packers purposely leaked something to McGinn in hopes Starks caught wind of it. It’s probably a long shot, but teams have used the media in the past. For example, Tedy Bruschi called Chad Johnson out last year. That was obviously a deliberate attempt to light a fire under him. Of course, it failed.

Originally Posted by: porky88 



That's pretty much what I suspect. They're trying to send him a message. They did that with House last year too, imo.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
all_about_da_packers
12 years ago

Sorry.. but how much stock do we take in McGinn's chosen whipping boys of camp?

He writes a daily column of ups and downs through his eyes.. and he looks for takes that are going to draw people to read his writings.

Basically.. it is a his living to stir the pot.. and the exact reason I don't take much stock in a ton of their takes. They are being paid to increase readership.. I would rather read a bloggers take of camp because they have a passion for it than someone that is being paid to cover and quasi forced to turn out articles.

Basically it is hard to distinguish their true opinions from their trying to throw something at the wall and see if it sticks type mentality to drawn in the readers. It is not that they don't know the game or can evaluate.. it is that it takes to much effort to parse their true view from what they fluff to draw attention.

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 



I have to disagree with this. McGinn is, by far, the best beat reporter for the Packers not only because he actually has some understanding of the game and dedication to his craft, but because he isn't simply one to churn out articles for the sake of controversy. He actually tries to bring the informed opinions of others to the table and isn't ashamed to contextualize his opinion by telling his readers it is from his own limited perspective. However, his years of covering the Packers have clearly provided him insight that few other reporters / fans can match. So, while I don't take his word to be everything, it is a perspective I am excited to read and do put some stock in.

Which leads me to McGinn's comments about Starks. I don't think some people actually get what he is saying: Starks, entering his third year in the league has, in McGinn's view, not improved at all in pass blocking or his running skills. As in, he's essentially as good at those things as he was when he first came in the NFL. From the view of any fan or reporter, if you think that is the case with a player then it has to be somewhat concerning. Even more so when you indirectly question the player's work ethic and desire to be the best he can be.

I remember last year in a column that some people in the organization saw Starks as a poor man's Adrian Peterson. With that much talent, it's understandable if some reporter is less than impressed if a player makes little/no attempt to maximize it.

Having said that though, maybe Starks is simply one of those players that shows up when it's game time. I was adamant throughout our Superbowl run that he'd virtually contribute nothing based on his practice reps and that we heard nothing good about him in practice. I was wrong because he showed up in the games when it mattered. So while I am not exactly panicking with what McGinn said, I do find his take interesting and, as a result, will keep a closer eye on Starks in the preseason games that I do watch to see what level his game is at when it matters.

And, since I haven't posted in a while and want to preserve any semblance of a zany online persona I may have, I leave you with this: In conclusion, I ❤ Adrian Peterson and so can you. (Seriously, I would attempt back-flips if Starks can even slightly resemble All-Day when it matters - during games. I'd also call him out if I felt he wasn't capitalizing that talent to reach that type of level)
The NFL: Where Greg Jennings Happens.
Pack93z
12 years ago
To be fair.. I probably should have X'd McGinn's name out specifically and put "Beat Reporters" through the entire post.

But I will stand by my point.. as a whole I really don't put much stock in the beat reporters "observations" and opinions on camp performances in these summary type articles where they are looking for the "Thumbs Down" section.

As a whole I read this camp reports and come away extremely disappointed and unimpressed.. these are professional writers.. they do this for a living.. is it really that hard to give a complete look at the overall camp in a detailed daily report in place of singling out players or "dogging" a single player.

I ran out and read yesterday's camp report.. now they are onto Starks catching ability.

Look.. we know we have questions at running back.. a position of weakness for the team by proven personnel and game plan philosophic mindset of being a pass first or almost exclusive team.

It is a reporter appointed hot topic.. probably got some of the lowest reviews on the JS roster review.

So they are focused on it.. almost tunnel visioned.. instead of giving us the reader a more complete look at the camp they are zeroed in on one aspect. Apparently Starks got the scarlet letter.. lol.

And to be honest, IMO, probably one of the least pressing concerns of this camp.

That is my general point.. they have agenda's.. and personally I don't wish to wallow through those agenda's.

So.. I will admit fault in singling out McGinn (albeit a thread with his name upon it), I see nothing that changes my opinion. Tuesday's JS camp report backs that opinion.. they are pushing an agenda. Starks is their whipping boy of the camp.

Probably went something like this.. hit up the coaching staff in off record conversation, picked up that the coaching staff has question about x player.. and now that has become the point of emphasis.

My opinion anyway.. I am not really trying to sway anyone's opinion or what they chose to read.. just why I will not place a ton of stock in it.


"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
zombieslayer
12 years ago

I have to disagree with this. McGinn is, by far, the best beat reporter for the Packers not only because he actually has some understanding of the game and dedication to his craft, but because he isn't simply one to churn out articles for the sake of controversy. He actually tries to bring the informed opinions of others to the table and isn't ashamed to contextualize his opinion by telling his readers it is from his own limited perspective. However, his years of covering the Packers have clearly provided him insight that few other reporters / fans can match. So, while I don't take his word to be everything, it is a perspective I am excited to read and do put some stock in.

Which leads me to McGinn's comments about Starks. I don't think some people actually get what he is saying: Starks, entering his third year in the league has, in McGinn's view, not improved at all in pass blocking or his running skills. As in, he's essentially as good at those things as he was when he first came in the NFL. From the view of any fan or reporter, if you think that is the case with a player then it has to be somewhat concerning. Even more so when you indirectly question the player's work ethic and desire to be the best he can be.

I remember last year in a column that some people in the organization saw Starks as a poor man's Adrian Peterson. With that much talent, it's understandable if some reporter is less than impressed if a player makes little/no attempt to maximize it.

Having said that though, maybe Starks is simply one of those players that shows up when it's game time. I was adamant throughout our Superbowl run that he'd virtually contribute nothing based on his practice reps and that we heard nothing good about him in practice. I was wrong because he showed up in the games when it mattered. So while I am not exactly panicking with what McGinn said, I do find his take interesting and, as a result, will keep a closer eye on Starks in the preseason games that I do watch to see what level his game is at when it matters.

And, since I haven't posted in a while and want to preserve any semblance of a zany online persona I may have, I leave you with this: In conclusion, I ❤ Adrian Peterson and so can you. (Seriously, I would attempt back-flips if Starks can even slightly resemble All-Day when it matters - during games. I'd also call him out if I felt he wasn't capitalizing that talent to reach that type of level)

Originally Posted by: all_about_da_packers 



I love AP as well and my wife even bought me an AP action figure for X-Mas last year. He's my favorite non-Packer.

BUT, I'd rather have Starks. Pack93z will probably disagree with this, but I'd rather NOT have an elite RB. Historically, elite RBs actually hurt their team. They get too many carries and thus, take away from the passing game. Since I've been following football, only a handful of elite RBs have even made the SB. E Smith immediately comes to mind as the exception. Wallie played on the winning team which scored 46 points and not a single one by Wallie. B Sanders was the best RB I've ever watched and he never played in the big game. M Faulk stands out as an elite RB on multiple SB teams, but in their one win, he was used primarily as a receiver and very slightly as a runner. That's because that's how a RB should be used.

This isn't the 60s my friends. The rules have changed, like it or not. I loved watching Wallie and now love watching AP, but I'm glad our starting RB is James Starks. (I'd prefer Starks to get significantly better at pass blocking though).
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Pack93z
12 years ago



BUT, I'd rather have Starks. Pack93z will probably disagree with this, but I'd rather NOT have an elite RB.

Originally Posted by: zombieslayer 



Truth be told.. I wouldn't mind an elite back talent wise but would probably prefer a combination of different backs with different skill sets to provide balance in the running game.

And I also don't think we need to be a run first team. I have and will agree that the NFL version of the game with the rules in place make it an aerial league with that being the emphasis.. traditional football concepts like defense be damned. Look at the numbers for QB's over the last two decades.. it shows that the game is rigged to allow more passing.

Anyway.. before I go off on another rant.. lol.

What I think wins ball games is the ability to run the ball when the game dictates that it is the best approach. There are a number of different situations in which a ground attack better suits an overall team than continuing to pass the rock.

Running the ball effectively, like almost all other things require practice. If you set your team to pass 75% of the time for 15 weeks.. don't expect on week 17 to be able to turn to the run effectively. It just will not be there.. running the ball has just about as much of a timing aspect to it as passing the ball does.. unless you have an elite back that can create his own space. IMO, there have been less than 10 backs all time that could create on their own.. Sanders being at the top.

Back to my point of preferring a set of good backs with differing strengths in terms of skill over an elite back.. like a Peterson.

An elite back, will demand the rock, you will have to feed him the ball to truly realize his talent. You will also have to pay him accordingly to keep him happy. Plus you are placing more eggs in one basket with an elite back.. as he is going to somewhat spoil the blocking with his talent.. they will be able to develop shortcuts due to leveraging our elite backs talent.

A collection approach requires the running game and blocking to be more pure.. establishing proper habits for the differing backs and their styles. You don't become to dependent upon the talents of one.. additionally you have much more diversity in sets, plays and tempo with a collection approach. You establish balance.


"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Pack93z
12 years ago
One other comment.. a good running game is more about the entire unit than just the running back themselves.

Just as a passing offense is about more than just the QB lining up and taking the snap.

It is about the collection of parts coming together and working in unison, this requires practice and repetition.

Without all parts functioning well.. it just isn't going to be consistently productive.

Running backs are just about as overrated as QB's... but at least they don't hide behind the red skirt or the zebra's.

They pound just like the other 21 players do..


Fundamentally.. why I say we need to run the rock week 1.. week 2.. etc; it is to keep that aspect of the offense tuned and in play for when we need to call upon it.

Not to say we have to be this all the time.. but keep it conditioned for use.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
zombieslayer
12 years ago
I completely see where you're coming from Pack, but D > O. Whether or not you can run or pass effectively, even with the rule changes that favor passing, still can be negated by an elite D.

We've seen this many times, and it happened to us last year. Of course, we helped that D by dropping the ball 7 times, but that's another can of worms.

And yes, we're in complete agreement about financial limitations. An elite RB will demand more money. I'd rather have that money spent on elite defenders. I'd much rather have Willits from the Niners than any RB who ever played the game (if hypothetically you only have the money to pay one).
My man Donald Driver
UserPostedImage
(thanks to Pack93z for the pic)
2010 will be seen as the beginning of the new Packers dynasty. 🇹🇹 🇲🇲 🇦🇷
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (2h) : Chiefs Eagles...again...sigh
dfosterf (3h) : Happy Birthday Dave!
Mucky Tundra (4h) : happy birthday dhazer
TheKanataThrilla (6h) : Exactly buck...Washington came up with the ball. It is just a shitty coincidence one week later
buckeyepackfan (6h) : I forgot, they corrected the call a week later. Lol btw HAPPY BIRTHDAY dhazer!
buckeyepackfan (6h) : That brings up the question, why wasn't Nixon down by contact? I think that was the point Kanata was making.
buckeyepackfan (6h) : Turnovers rule, win the turnover battle, win the game.
packerfanoutwest (6h) : well, he was
TheKanataThrilla (6h) : Eagles down by contact on the fumble....fuck you NFL
Mucky Tundra (6h) : I think this games over
beast (7h) : Eagles sure get a lot of fumbles on kickoffs
Mucky Tundra (7h) : This game looks too big for Washington
packerfanoutwest (11h) : that being said, The Ravens are the Browns
packerfanoutwest (11h) : Browns, Dolphins have longest AFC Championship droughts
packerfanoutwest (11h) : As of today, Cowboys have longest NFC Championship drought,
beast (21h) : Someone pointed out, with Raiders hiring Carroll, the division games between Carroll and Jim Harbaugh are back on (who can whine more games)
beast (26-Jan) : I'm confused, Pete Carroll and Brian Schottenheimer? When Todd Monken, Joe Brady, Kellen Moore, Kliff Kingsbury and Zac Robinson are availab
Zero2Cool (25-Jan) : Any reason I'm catching a shot here about my intelligence?
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : thank you Mucky for sticking up for me
Martha Careful (25-Jan) : some of those people are smarter than you zero. However Pete Carroll is not
Mucky Tundra (24-Jan) : Rude!
beast (24-Jan) : Martha? 😋
Zero2Cool (24-Jan) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (24-Jan) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (24-Jan) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23-Jan) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
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
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

25-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.