uffda udfa
9 years ago

I'm pretty sure it means more than some guy on a message board who didn't want Adams when he was drafted, and seems really disappointed when he plays well and gets recognized by coaches, teammates, reporters, and fans.

Originally Posted by: greengold 



Actually, it probably means about the same.

I'm not disappointed. I just think there has been way too much gushing over a guy who really didn't do all that much as a rookie and I haven't seen anything that gets me really excited about his future.


UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


buckeyepackfan
9 years ago

Actually, it probably means about the same.

I'm not disappointed. I just think there has been way too much gushing over a guy who really didn't do all that much as a rookie and I haven't seen anything that gets me really excited about his future.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



You're ability to judge talent is well documented.

Goes right along with Ted's ability to make you look foolish.

For a 2nd round pick Adams did just fine last year.
He excelled in a couple of games and he was not a factor in others.

Pretty much what most expect from a rookie.

Plenty of talent ready to challenge him this pre-season, will only make him better.
I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!
sschind
9 years ago

Actually, it probably means about the same.

I'm not disappointed. I just think there has been way too much gushing over a guy who really didn't do all that much as a rookie and I haven't seen anything that gets me really excited about his future.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



as opposed to gushing over a player who did even less as a rookie. Although he did show at least one person something on one play late in a preseason game. I know, I know, I keep forgetting his Julioesque measurables.

I do agree with you though on being wary of putting too much stock into what team mates say. It's on a par with what coaches say and probably only a tiny bit more relevant than what some guy on some internet forum says. The thing is it has to work both ways. You can't discount what is said about players you don't care for and then bring up something positive that is said about a player you prefer.

On a bit of a side note and not to hijack the thread but IMO that is exactly what happened when Brett said the vikings team was the most talented he had ever played on, or whatever his words were. He said it because that is what the leader of a team is supposed to say. I would be very surprised to find out that he really meant it. The Favre haters just took it as a personal slight against the Packers and ran with it though

The bottom line is team mates, coaches, fans, they say stuff about each other all the time. Sometimes it is the truth, sometimes they may actually believe what they say, and sometimes it is just said because it is what is expected to be said. The thing is it is very difficult to know which one it is sometimes.
greengold
9 years ago

Actually, it probably means about the same.

I'm not disappointed. I just think there has been way too much gushing over a guy who really didn't do all that much as a rookie and I haven't seen anything that gets me really excited about his future.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 




I want to be sure I can follow all of this. According to uffda:

1. Jeff Janis is too dumb to get on the field.

2. Davante Adams is even dumber than Jeff Janis.

3. Davante said something flattering about a fellow player that was really insightful. (V12 baby was it?)

4. Aaron Rodgers said something flattering about a fellow player that means absolutely nothing.

5. Randall Cobb said flattering things about the same player unprompted, that also means absolutely nothing.

Does that mean Aaron Rodgers and Randall Cobb are dumber than Davante Adams who is dumber than a guy too dumb to get on the field?



uffda udfa
9 years ago

I want to be sure I can follow all of this. According to uffda:

1. Jeff Janis is too dumb to get on the field.

2. Davante Adams is even dumber than Jeff Janis.

3. Davante said something flattering about a fellow player that was really insightful. (V12 baby was it?)

4. Aaron Rodgers said something flattering about a fellow player that means absolutely nothing.

5. Randall Cobb said flattering things about the same player unprompted, that also means absolutely nothing.

Does that mean Aaron Rodgers and Randall Cobb are dumber than Davante Adams who is dumber than a guy too dumb to get on the field?

Originally Posted by: greengold 



1. Pondered the possibility ...MM refuted that saying he was coming on and ready after Thanksgiving.

2. Janis excelled at the Wonderlic...Adams did not.

3. Davante commented on something EVERYONE saw. PURE SPEED. Yes, V12

4. Aaron has a failed history with being wrong when he does so.

5. Yes, because he's a teammate and we haven't seen the same things ourselves. They are in the same WR room and it's always good as a teammate to encourage one another.


UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


greengold
9 years ago

1. Pondered the possibility ...MM refuted that saying he was coming on and ready after Thanksgiving.

2. Janis excelled at the Wonderlic...Adams did not.

3. Davante commented on something EVERYONE saw. PURE SPEED. Yes, V12

4. Aaron has a failed history with being wrong when he does so.

5. Yes, because he's a teammate and we haven't seen the same things ourselves. They are in the same WR room and it's always good as a teammate to encourage one another.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



Why does a McCarthy quote carry any weight? Didn't he say nice things about Boykin one year and then a year later Boykin signed with another team? Didn't he say nice things about Dujuan Harris about a year before he left for another team? You just can't believe anything that guy says!


uffda udfa
9 years ago

Why does a McCarthy quote carry any weight? Didn't he say nice things about Boykin one year and then a year later Boykin signed with another team? Didn't he say nice things about Dujuan Harris about a year before he left for another team? You just can't believe anything that guy says!

Originally Posted by: greengold 



You really can't. Good point. I would say I would consider his comments after the fact far more valid than those in front of something. Mike McCarthy was answering a question about the past not the future when it came to Janis. If he said JJ got it after Thanksgiving, I tend to trust that way more than, JJ is going to take a big step for us this year.

My overriding point is fans lap up words of players and coaches as if it's an unbiased opinion. It often means diddly because of the PR reasons it's said in the first place.


UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


greengold
9 years ago

My overriding point is fans lap up words of players and coaches as if it's an unbiased opinion. It often means diddly because of the PR reasons it's said in the first place.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



And you lap up words of players and coaches when it supports your position, and dismiss the words of the same players and coaches when it doesn't.



uffda udfa
9 years ago

And you lap up words of players and coaches when it supports your position, and dismiss the words of the same players and coaches when it doesn't.

Originally Posted by: greengold 



No, sir. I have explained to you the differences. I suggest you look up "nuanced" in the dictionary.


UserPostedImage
Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."


Zero2Cool
9 years ago

ESPNWisconsin: Speaking of that perfectionist nature, you have made it very clear in recent years that if a player is going to make mental mistakes and isn’t going to be where he’s supposed to be, you don’t want him on the field with you. Last year, you were tough on Davante Adams initially, but as the year wore on, he proved himself to you, and last week you wouldn’t stop talking about his approach and work ethic and potential. How do you balance demanding excellence from your teammates with not wanting them to hate you because you’re so tough on them?

Aaron Rodgers: I never called out Davante by name last year. I was hoping that he would pick it up with his practice habits. But Davante is a very polished player, and he has an excellent demeanor for a guy who’s going to be a star. I mean, he carries himself like a star – which is a very high compliment. There’s only been a few guys around here who’ve had that charisma: Charles (Woodson), Julius (Peppers, Greg (Jennings) always had it as a young player. But there’s very few guys that really ‘get it.” And he has supreme confidence, and it’s contagious. And I’m really proud of his approach and his attitude. It makes you want to get him the ball more. It makes you watch the film and have regrets about not giving him more opportunities. And that’s again, another compliment for him. He really came on and made plays last season. But the entire time, between his big game against New England and Dallas, where he didn’t get a lot of touches and his targets were low, he was always bringing it and running his routes to win, which is a huge accomplishment for a young guy. So that’s what we’re looking for from the other young guys, and they’ve got to come along.



When I said Aaron seems to speak about players with precision, this supports that. Also shows he's not as bias as some falsely claim him to be. I highlighted a little portion that I think we uninformed fans should heed notice of. Let's keep an eye on this Adams kid!
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
packerfanoutwest (36m) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (38m) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (49m) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (3h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (3h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (3h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (3h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (3h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (3h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (3h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (3h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (4h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (4h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (4h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (5h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (5h) : 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 (5h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (5h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (5h) : 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 (6h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (6h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (6h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (6h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (7h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (7h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (7h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (8h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (8h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (9h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (9h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (9h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (9h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (9h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (9h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (9h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (9h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (9h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (9h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (9h) : 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 (9h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (9h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (9h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (9h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (10h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (10h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Zero2Cool (10h) : Packers should get in. I just hope it's not 7th seed. Feels dirty.
packerfanoutwest (10h) : If packers lose out, no matter what, they are in
packerfanoutwest (10h) : both teams can not male the playoffs....falcon hold the tie breaker
packerfanoutwest (10h) : if bucs win out they win their division
beast (10h) : Fine, Buccaneers and Falcons can get ahead of us
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
3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

8h / 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.