Personally... this is "news" because there is little happening other than signings right now to discuss. There is some "baggage" to this singing.. so they are talking about it.

Just an UDFA signing.. little risk.. this one just might have a little more reward potential based on talent.

Sure other teams have noticed.. if he keeps his head on straight and his talent projects forward in the league.. it becomes another facet they have to defend. Anyone thinking that there is some negative impacts to this signing.. other than the over played "Packer people" nonsense.. it just isn't here.

Much like the Hubbard signing.. there might be a little more potential than average.

What strikes me funny though, is those that hammered the Hubbard signing, are celebrating this one. 🤔

Originally Posted by: Pack93z 

You were provided several examples of previous signings to 53 man rosters of people committing worse, or allegedly committing worse. Rather than respond to the question of whether those teams took a hit, you sidestep it by saying you're not talking about now and you're talking about in the future. Well guess what, it is the future and I gave you examples of the past.

Lets say Colt does something stupid. Lets say he gets busted doing cocaine. He gets cut, the Packers move on.

How does this hurt the Packers? How does this effect them in any way? The teams mentioned earlier took no hit, why would the Packers take a hit for adding Colt to their 90 man roster?


Do you believe a team is not going to trade with the Packers because they gave Colt a chance?

Do you feel that a team would not agree to play them in the pre-season because they signed Colt?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Holy crap man. Wow. Fine.

Yes, yes, maybe, no, no. How's that?

I'm not talking about a possibility of something as benign as a cocaine bust. We've seen far worse around the league, and I don't think it is wrong to take into consideration the possibilities of what might happen with signing a player with known character issues.

Those last two questions are so far off the map they are really not worth answering Z2C. I mean, really... sorry.

Originally Posted by: play2win 

None of them took a hit, not a single one of them. Just as the Packers took no hit with Koren Robinson and/or Johnny Jolly and will not take a hit with Colt Lyerla (crap his name is a pain to type lol).

What would it matter if Colt Lyerla or Jordy Nelson commits a heinous despicable crime? I would argue it would hurt more if Nelson than Lyerla due to the financial investment as well as on the field.

If those last two questions are so far off of the map, then what league cred are you worried about? Are you saying the Packers should worry about what other teams think of them for trying to better their roster? I am trying to understand your point, but I do not.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

I don't believe you're against the signing, but you're adding an ounce of validity to what Bobby is saying. That is what I am targeting. What exactly could happen? What are the ramifications? You said my two questions were off base, but if off base, why the hell would the Packers give a damn about anything else? Do you think fans will not buy season tickets to the games? I mean, what ramifications? I do not get it.

Rae Carruth. Yes, what ramifications did the Panthers have? None.
Aaron Hernandez. What ramifications did the Patriots have? None.


What I'm saying here is what a player does, will not ruin the team. It will not dissuade another team from working with them via trade or anything of that magnitude.

League cred. What is that? What value does it have? If it doesn't correlate to a successful franchise, any implication that the Green Bay Packers give a damn is asinine. That is MY opinion.

Every player ... EVERY player is a risk. The Packers have ZERO risk involved here, ZERO. None. Nadda. Ziltch. Absolutely no more than any other undrafted free agent that was signed.



Do you know why Bobby hasn't inked an article about the Packers GETTING cred for signing players who were homeless and had no previous criminal history? I believe James Jones was homeless. I believe Donald Driver was homeless. Do the Packers get "league cred" for that? Does Bobby have any ink upon that?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Your belittling of ramifications and perceptions is quite remarkable and blanket. You don't know that.

And, do not throw the McGinn stuff at me. Those are his words, not mine. I think the league credit line he took is stupid.

Let's say, hypothetically, everything is right in Colt Lyerla's world. We are undefeated through ten games. He's making a name for himself around the NFL and everyone is taking notice. Our team is doing well, riding the wave. All of a sudden he goes out to celebrate, has too much to drink and crashes into another car killing a family. You don't think the Packers might face more scrutiny in a scenario like this than if it were another player who had done this?

You don't see risk, not only to said family, but, to a far lesser extent, how something as stupid as that might affect the team? Think that winning streak continues?

No risk? Zero ramifications? Hardly. And, I feel both the Little and Stallworth incidents had adverse effects on their teams. Did the Lofton incident not touch the Packers? Really? Because I sure do remember it, uh, sucking for GB.

How about Walden? How did that work out for us? Were we not undefeated? The next week we squeaked by the Giants, handled the hapless Raiders, then were shocked by a KC team who had nothing to play for. We lost focus. And, that media buzz on Walden was whirring...

Do I think this kind of stuff will happen? No. I'm hoping not anyway. I'm hoping for the best, just like all of us.

Originally Posted by: play2win