uffda udfa
7 years ago

And you OVERSHOOT the fight til the point you often have the opposite problem.
Where Packer=bad is something you need to fight against to look past and see what's really there.

Like I said, I was surprised to see how much he improved... in that aspect (how much he improved through training camp) he kinda reminds me of Marshall Newhouse (their play style is very different), but that both were pretty dang back and surprisingly improved throughout training camp.

Originally Posted by: beast 



I can man up and say that I didn't watch Amichia's tape at all. I know of the Packers penchant to keep draft picks. I know of the Packers dearth of talent in their backup OL. I know that they didn't keep him. I know that no other team in the NFL claimed him and I know he was originally a 6th round pick that may not have been drafted at all if not for us. None of the things above give me any kind of inkling he's going to be "very good".

Now, will anyone saying he will be very good man up and say why they're saying this other than Packer=good? You said you watched him. Watching the games live on my laptop and being at the Philly game I can honestly state I never once specifically was watching or thinking...I better focus on Kofi Amichia. As I said above, there are general reasonings to think he is more likely to not be a player than he is.

What I can't stand is rah rah sentimentalism and my issues with some of this go way back over the years to countless baseless, flippant to downright untrue uninformed statements on players. My opinion which isn't worth what someone who has watched him specifically for some time is that he is more likely to be nothing than he is to be very good. What is the issue with that opinion? It's better than 50 50 Amichia does turn into a very good player for us? I don't think so or the above wouldn't be true. It's barely over 50 50 a guy is going to good period much less when the above is true. It's a logically based opinion.

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."


steveishere
7 years ago

I can man up and say that I didn't watch Amichia's tape at all. I know of the Packers penchant to keep draft picks. I know of the Packers dearth of talent in their backup OL. I know that they didn't keep him. I know that no other team in the NFL claimed him and I know he was originally a 6th round pick that may not have been drafted at all if not for us. None of the things above give me any kind of inkling he's going to be "very good".

Now, will anyone saying he will be very good man up and say why they're saying this other than Packer=good? You said you watched him. Watching the games live on my laptop and being at the Philly game I can honestly state I never once specifically was watching or thinking...I better focus on Kofi Amichia. As I said above, there are general reasonings to think he is more likely to not be a player than he is.

What I can't stand is rah rah sentimentalism and my issues with some of this go way back over the years to countless baseless, flippant to downright untrue uninformed statements on players. My opinion which isn't worth what someone who has watched him specifically for some time is that he is more likely to be nothing than he is to be very good. What is the issue with that opinion? It's better than 50 50 Amichia does turn into a very good player for us? I don't think so or the above wouldn't be true. It's barely over 50 50 a guy is going to good period much less when the above is true. It's a logically based opinion.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



It's much less than 50/50 that any player drafted later than the 4th round becomes even an average player. Not just Packer fans but all fans severely overestimate the potential of players taken in the last 3 rounds. As far as expectations I personally just treat 5th/6th/7th as priority UDFA because the talent gap is really not very much between them. Yeah you can get a gem every once in a while but it's so rare it's not really something you should be counting on.
uffda udfa
7 years ago
Right...50-50 is probably too aggressive for a 1st rounder much less a 6th. I just don't know how many of us spent a whole lot of time watching and reviewing Amichia tape to make any kind of assessment that he was going to be very good given all the counter evidence to the contrary.

My original ire drawing comment was this:

Anyone saying Amichia is going to be very good has an agenda. Nobody can say that after his brutal performance. It's like saying Spriggs will be a great LT. Can't say such nonsense.

Perhaps, wrong for me to say his performance was brutal as I didn't specifically watch him. A good assumption based on the things outlined previously.

However, when someone dogmatically states he IS going to be very good and it's based on the same or less than my opinion is based off of, I have a hard time not responding.
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."


beast
7 years ago

My opinion ... is that he is more likely to be nothing than he is to be very good. What is the issue with that opinion? It's better than 50 50 Amichia does turn into a very good player for us? I don't think so or the above wouldn't be true. It's barely over 50 50 a guy is going to good period much less when the above is true. It's a logically based opinion.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



I have no issue with that opinion. But as I'm pretty sure Barfarn (and probably others) has said, you could say that about every single player in the draft and you'll be more right than wrong, because more players don't make it than do.

Especially when you consider you standard for the label "good player" is probably ridiculous high as are most of your standards, which is getting back to the point... other people undershoot, you overshoot, it's still off the mark either way.

The kid is a late round pick, that does not mean he's going to be ready right away. We're looking more from improvement as the rookies adjust to the NFL.
UserPostedImage
uffda udfa
7 years ago

I have no issue with that opinion. But as I'm pretty sure Barfarn (and probably others) has said, you could say that about every single player in the draft and you'll be more right than wrong, because more players don't make it than do.

Especially when you consider you standard for the label "good player" is probably ridiculous high as are most of your standards, which is getting back to the point... other people undershoot, you overshoot, it's still off the mark either way.

The kid is a late round pick, that does not mean he's going to be ready right away. We're looking more from improvement as the rookies adjust to the NFL.

Originally Posted by: beast 



Barfarn is right. So am I. It's almost like saying sky is blue and water is wet. That's why it's worthy of a reply when someone is making crazy statements like some 6th round cut who wasn't claimed IS going to be VERY GOOD. That's totally baseless and is agenda driven UNLESS that person has really studied Amichia. My opinion was looked at agenda driven by you but it really is logic based, although, I understand the allegation. Packer=good is a maddening mentality.
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."


beast
7 years ago

Barfarn is right. So am I. It's almost like saying sky is blue and water is wet. That's why it's worthy of a reply when someone is making crazy statements like some 6th round cut who wasn't claimed IS going to be VERY GOOD. That's totally baseless and is agenda driven UNLESS that person has really studied Amichia.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 


I agree with that.

My opinion was looked at agenda driven by you but it really is logic based, although, I understand the allegation. Packer=good is a maddening mentality.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 


That because you are pushing your agenda (see "Packer=good is a maddening mentality")

Also because you read very far into things and then add your assumptions on top of that, and then read further into it... just like the rah rah fans that you don't like... but while they assume good Packers, you assume bad Packers.
UserPostedImage
uffda udfa
7 years ago

I agree with that.

That because you are pushing your agenda (see "Packer=good is a maddening mentality")

Also because you read very far into things and then add your assumptions on top of that, and then read further into it... just like the rah rah fans that you don't like... but while they assume good Packers, you assume bad Packers.

Originally Posted by: beast 



No. Rah rah fans ALWAYS say Packer=good. If you think me commenting on someone else's agenda is an agenda then I accept that. My opinion on Amichia isn't based on Packer=bad it is based on logic. Huge difference. Again, I said I understand your perception that I think all Packers are bad. That isn't true. I LOVE Aaron Jones. I really like Michael Clark. Thrilled Marty B. is our TE. I'm not automatically calibrated to say Packer=bad like rah rah is to say Packer=good. There's a difference. Just because the majority of what I say comes across as negative doesn't mean it's agenda driven other than logic being the agenda.
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."


beast
7 years ago

No. Rah rah fans ALWAYS say Packer=good.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 


Not always, especially when it comes to linemen. A lot of rah rah types wanted Bak gone or at least not at LT because he doesn't fit the prototypical body built.... they wanted Spriggs to replace Bak last year... and this year, they wanted to move Bulaga to RG and Spriggs to RT (again, about prototypical body built, more than actual play skill.

I LOVE Aaron Jones. I really like Michael Clark. Thrilled Marty B. is our TE. I'm not automatically calibrated to say Packer=bad like rah rah is to say Packer=good. There's a difference.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 


No, from what I see, you're exactly the same in that regard. As neither are automatically calibrated 100% in either direction.

I was talking to some fans that you would call "rah rah" and was telling them that Ringo looks like he's going to make it this year... and they just went and bad mouth him and praised Price... as just like you, the "rah rah" players have their favorites and least favorites too.

You see rah rah types aren't as rah rah about certain linemen (because linemen are less exciting and harder to get all rah rah about). While you aren't as boo boo about the the "skilled" players (because skilled players are easy to get all rah rah about).

It's the exact same thing.

Just because the majority of what I say comes across as negative doesn't mean it's agenda driven other than logic being the agenda.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 


It doesn't come across as negative... it is negative. You're bad mouthing a group of people. That is negative. You're saying most players will fail. That is negative. "I think we overrate ALL of them." That is negative towards other people.

Doesn't mean it's not logical and true, but it is negative.

And you also assume the worst (which is also negative) and not logical.
~ Thompson is mentally handicapped now
~ They failed in drafting Bulaga
Which you cite things as prove with just as low standards as the rah rah types.
UserPostedImage
uffda udfa
7 years ago
I won't say anything more about your perception of me. Your perception is yours. My perception is mine.

The truth is neither positive nor negative. That is what I strive for.

Everyone has to search themselves as to their biases if they ever want to get to the truth.

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."


beast
7 years ago

I won't say anything more about your perception of me. Your perception is yours. My perception is mine.

The truth is neither positive nor negative. That is what I strive for.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 


Sounds like I hit a nerve, sorry if I did.
If the truth is what you seek then limiting your options is not good... have more of an open mind

Everyone has to search themselves as to their biases if they ever want to get to the truth.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 


And I think your doing good of a job attacking your fan biases... too good of a job in fact.

I believe your logic is 90+% (or whatever percent) of the Packers media positive spin so you need to read into it from the opposite perspective to get the truth from it. Which could be good logic.

I think you read into it, then use a couple of assumptions (which might be true (or false)) and then think your interpretation is fact... which is why I think sometimes you said something was proof, and no one else could see it as proof.

Again, sorry if I struck a nerve... I'll try to drop it now.
UserPostedImage
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (9h) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (10h) : 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...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE
packerfanoutwest (21-Jan) : Zero, per your orders, check Bearshome, not packershome
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Then he'll land with another team and flourish.
Zero2Cool (20-Jan) : Ben going to Bears. He'll be out in 3 years.
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
22-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

22-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

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 / Mucky Tundra

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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