BTW, 2008 Detroit Lions went 4 - 0 in the exhibition games and 0 - 16. That's just something to consider when reacting in the excessive category. 😁

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Did you read Vic Ketchman yesterday?

Originally Posted by: musccy 

Whenever I read complaints I try to picture them in context so can you tell us where the Packers ranked in red zone efficiency relative to the rest of the NFL?

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Every Packer Fan I know was pissed, some deal with adversity differently better than others.



NO! ya take it like a big big guy! You keep your head and evaluate with calmness and scholarship. Go ahead shoot them, YOU end up in prison. You evaluate if you should stay married, live in the neighborhood, what's bets for the kids. Of course the best friend, coincidentally his name is Bostic Slow-cum, has gotta go...LOL

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 

I don't. Not concerned with the rest of the NFL. Concerned with how we do and how we should do. We have the same players who weren't as effective as they should've been last year.

Tell me...what has changed? Clements?

If you saw the same failures in an exhibition as you saw in regular season and playoff games that is not cause for any concern whatsoever? I keep forgetting...it's all just luck, anyway. If we only get luckier in the RZ we can relax but sadly with luck one can never relax because you can never count on it.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

I know you do not think in relative terms at all. You seem to think the Packers should be playing All Madden while the rest of the NFL is on Novice or Rookie. That's simply unrealistic. If the Packers are are doing better than a good portion of the league, they must be doing something right. Does this mean they can't improve? Absolutely not and I think that is where you are sit firmly. Regardless of how good they are, you demand they do better. I find no qualms with that.

I would say you see Aaron Rodgers, Eddie Lacy, Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb and a pretty damn good OL and think "you can't punch it in for six at least 75% of the time?". I'm with you on that, however, I also know that when the field is shorter, you have less options. When you're in the red zone you have 22 men packed into just 30 yards of space at most. That limits your options dramatically.

One problem I have with your "style" is if the Packers punched it in each time, you'd be crowing "it is just exhibition, doesn't matter". Truth. 😁 I've said before and will again. I want to see improvement from game to game in exhibition. If the Packers falter again on 8 attempts inside the 5 yard line with the starting offense. It will be curious to ponder... are they just experimenting? are they holding back? are they trying to set something up for regular season?

As you can see, many variables here.

Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool 

Yeah, let's just rest on LUCK... that way it's not anyone's fault. It's just plain dumb luck. I'm sure the past 49 SB Winners all won because they just got lucky? Our Packers dominated the first two SB's...no luck involved at all. We rocked New England...there was no luck involved in that one.

Pittsburgh was interesting. We had lost so many guys to IR and then during the game. When Jarrett Bush makes a play anytime there must be an element of luck so I'm confused now. We barely got in that year. Had the Bears had something to play for we likely aren't in the playoffs that year at all. Rodgers got hot and we rolled behind him.

None of these luck or no luck debates has a thing to do with having nobody at your TE position or a poorly performing D loaded with high picks in it. Those are things you can do something about.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

My belief is most of you think that being great is unrealistic and good is as good as it gets.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

I don't know what you mean by great; but to me Great is GB in 60's, Pitts in 70s. Maybe a third of the starters HOFers; another third perennial pro-bowlers; the other third plus 5 or 6 on the bench part time or almost all-pro; many of whom have played together for 8-10 years. Teamwork and talent so cohesive, good and dominant mindset, their play overcomes [as Tex says] much more than the average amount of luck. Loading and reloading is really really hard, that's why dynasties are special, and it is not just about front office talent, they need luck. And luck even prevented the great teams of Pack in 63 and 64 and of Pitts in 76 and 77 from winning.

Today Great is not only unrealistic; IT IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The closest a team in Cap era has come to Great is NE in early 2000s [aided by luck of getting Brady in rd 6; but once they paid him reloading has been sporadic] and the Seattle example, 3 consecutive drafts chalked full of really good players including a cheap QB, w/ a blend of good vets. With proper cap management and average drafts over the next 3 years, Seattle could have been dominant for 5-6 years, before having to rely more on luck to reload. Instead Schneider's unbridled aggression has limited his team's dominance to one year [2013]. Schneider tired to force a dynasty with aggression and wrecked it!

Harbaalke had a solid core to compete for a few more years; but unbridled on the field and front office aggression dismantled that team 2-3 years before its time.

To sacrifice being good in future years and be super aggressive to achieve unachievable greatness this year is patently idiotic. And you'll find out as most teams do: after being aggressive and being more "talented" the team isn't even as good in the aggressive year as it was the year before. Controlled and steady wins 99% of any race; but it wins 100% of NFL races.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn