Look to the AFC to see why the Packers have failed as an organization· Page 2

Porforis
Veteran Member

8 years ago

The quoted statement above drives me crazy. It's defeatist and used to invalidate going for it because it may not have worked...yeah, but it might have just as easily, too but that's not considered all to fit the mindset and agenda of our org shooting low...like always. So many are now conditioned to think low just like the org. Man, don't do it. Expect more. This window with 12 has someone with two hands on top of the pane exerting pressure. Soon, it'll be slammed shut and you'll be angry we did next to nothing with two straight HOF QB's. Now, is the time for the fans of this org, the board, etc. to get rowdy and stop making excuses of injuries and that yeah things could've been done but they might not have worked. That's just ridiculous. Mindset...Mindset...Mindset. What you allow will continue.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

You're taking my quote completely out of context. Implying that something isn't necessarily true doesn't mean that I'm implying the idea has no merit or that I don't personally agree with the philosophy.

There never is... I can guarantee you that he didn't go for it to find out...never does.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Except for Peppers and Jones. AGAIN I AM NOT SAYING THAT I AGREE WITH TED THOMPSON'S PHILOSOPHY OR THAT HE'S DOING ANYTHING CLOSE TO ENOUGH WITH FREE AGENCY. But, it's not that he never does or never tries, it's that he doesn't try nearly as much as you would like. Again, not trying to debate philosophy here, just trying to get people to stop blaming one or two issues for all of our woes in a context that heavily implies or outright states that by fixing x we'd be winning super bowls.

This is the type of thing that is used to invalidate the mindset of going for it. I can't state it enough until it's really understood. The issue with this franchise is and has been and will continue to be...MINDSET. It is wrong. It isn't wired to win SB's. It is wired to play it safe and ride the QB in the hopes the chance he gives us pays off because it did that one time. This org continually fails to do what it could do to put a better team around the HOF QB. We've been hamstrung by a brutal defense for years. Some are now just tickled and think we had the D to win it this season. It was ranked 15th for crying out loud but to some it had arrived because their expectations have been so low due to the constant failure.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Again, don't understand why people choose to oversimplify complex issues. In years passed, the Packers offense has been very good and the defense has been crap. This year, the Packers offense was abject crap and the defense was above average. Offensive production makes the defense's job easier and vice versa. Issues on the offensive end means more time on the field for the defense and worse starting field position. The converse is true. Was our defense dominant? Absolutely not. Is it something to strive for and something key to super bowl aspirations? Absolutely. Is it wrong to feel optimistic about our defense because it improved from 2014 and 2015 despite a major regression on the offensive side, our two young corners? Absolutely not.

That's a microcosm of how fans view this org and their SB aspirations. We're always so quick to praise stuff in this org and way too slow to look objectively with the issues that prevent us from winning.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Taking the opposite approach doesn't make you any better or worse of a fan than anybody else. Taking it to the extreme because you believe most fans are too positive doesn't make you any more objective than anybody else. Being objective means being willing to see and admit both the good and the bad in a situation regardless of your overall opinion on the matter.

DoddPower
Veteran Member

8 years ago

#12

Is it realistic to believe the GBP are going to have a 3rd All Pro quarterback fall into their lap so we waste another couple decades not winning super bowls?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

The Packers already have their next All Pro Quarterback on the roster: Brett Hundley. 😂 😂

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

8 years ago

#13

Originally Posted by: Porforis

I take major issue with this comment. Someone who is "positive" by definition is NOT objective because their filter is set to POSITIVITY. Vic Ketchman is the LAST place to look for objectivity. A person who is objective by definition is good with positive and negative. The "positive" person can't/won't go to the "negative" pole. It's not in them, therefore, they are completely not objective. I am definitely not better than any fan. However, I am far more objective than any positive spinning fan. That's not even a question with me and shouldn't be for you. Questioning is great. Imagine a world like most Packers fans view this team. Welcome to STEPFORD. So, yes, I 1 million percent believe I am more objective than a positive fan. Boy, that's a euphemism right there. A "positive" fan.

Also, you equated signing James freaking Jones to "going for it" and a 35 year old DE that we converted to LB as "going for it". Signing Peppers is something I was all for. It's hardly some big move but in Green Bay it's like signing Reggie due to how little we do anything remotely like that. We got a guy well past his prime to "go for it". Going for it kinda necessitates a player has a ton to offer to get us there. Julius worked out okay year 1. I was proud of Ted Thompson for at least doing something. Something! This window is a closing. Make hey while you can. You never think it's too late until it is. To me it's always too late. The time is NOW...not somewhere fixed in the distance.

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."

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

8 years ago

#14

I am definitely not better than any fan. However, I am far more objective than any positive spinning fan. That's not even a question with me and shouldn't be for you.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

So he says objectively

This is priceless.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

8 years ago

#15

So he says objectively

This is priceless.

Originally Posted by: PackFanWithTwins

Again, 1 million percent yes... not because I'm saying I'm objective in a vacuum but up against a "positive" fan, I'm light years better in the objectivity category. Didn't you read what I wrote? Being a "positive" fan rules out being objective...you look at everything not objectively but rather in a positive light. That is NOT objectivity and YES again and again and again again I'm more objective. laugh and call it priceless. That is reality.

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."

Porforis
Veteran Member

8 years ago

#16

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Ever consider that by actively fighting against the overly positive mindset because you see it as not objective, you might skew yourself in the opposite direction more than is objective in an attempt to distance yourself from said lack of objectiveness? I mean, you're straight up saying that being a positive fan rules out being objective, that's a pretty hardline stance.

DakotaT
Select Member

8 years ago

#17

When does free agency begin? This thread needs a tangent.

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

8 years ago

#18

When does free agency begin? This thread needs a tangent.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

Does it matter? We are bystanders anyway.

To porforis... I seek to honestly assess this team as if I wasn't a fan. Being a fan of anything is going to skew you right off the bat. While in media, I worked at not being a fan but more of a neutral observer. That is now how I as a fan see this team when it comes to what I believe needs improvement and mindset is #1 on the list and that requires change.

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."

PackFanWithTwins
Veteran Member

8 years ago

#19

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

That is complete BS. Being positive and objective are not mutually exclusive, not being positive does not make a person more objective.

A person can be positive and still just as objective as anybody else.

Pile on that your posting history only proves you are not objective.

The world needs ditch diggers too Danny!!!

uffda udfa
Veteran Member Topic Starter

8 years ago

#20

Have you ever looked at the definition of objective?

(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
synonyms: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced, nonpartisan, disinterested, neutral, uninvolved, even-handed, equitable, fair, fair-minded, just, open-minded, dispassionate, detached, neutral

Look at the definition and the synonyms and type with a straight face that a positive fan can possibly be objective? I told you what my aim is when looking at this team. I am much more in line than a positive fan when it comes to objectivity. Why does that truth upset you so? Because I tell you the truth you don't want to hear? That's all too familiar territory. Bob McGinn can relate also.

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."

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (8h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (8h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (8h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (8h) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (11h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (11h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (12h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (14h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (14h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (14h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (14h) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (14h) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (14h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (14h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (14h) : 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 (15h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (16h) : 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 (16h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (16h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (16h) : 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 (16h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (17h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (17h) : 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 (17h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (18h) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (18h) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (18h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (18h) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (18h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (19h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (19h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (20h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (20h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (21h) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (21h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (21h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (21h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (21h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (21h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (21h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

beast (21h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality

beast (21h) : 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 (21h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread

Zero2Cool (21h) : I literally just said it.

packerfanoutwest (21h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't

Zero2Cool (21h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.

Zero2Cool (21h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.

packerfanoutwest (21h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS