This is the same ol' shit... everyone that doesn't agree with you isn't be objectivity...

Just because you're a pessimist fan, doesn't make you objectivity in anyway.
Hell the fact that your a pessimist fans means you're not objectivity...
just like you proved the Packers would have a losing record last year.

---

What was the context of my objectivity comment? You provided none because for you it is more fun to make up something to be upset with and then start typing. It was written in the context of Barfarn's insistence that Richard Rodgers was going to be a star. He and I debated that here years ago and he talked down to me saying he'd studied tape and I didn't have a clue, basically. I disagreed and said he was never going to be anything but average. He also said that same year about our D being Top 10 which I also took issue with. If you noticed, this year it's...we're going to be a Top 5 statistical defense. I take major issue with that. To me, that can't come from any place but rah rah because there is no basis for it in my view so it makes me question whether his love for the Packers blinds him to reality like it does so many. That is the context. It is in reaction to him putting me down years ago so yes I question his objectivity. 100%, I do. I think Barfarn is brilliant and fun to read. I rarely agree with him but occasionally there's common ground which by the way is NOT the goal of a forum even though I've been told that it should be. I understand you. You don't me and don't give me the respect I give to others. I do argue with them about football but I don't get mean spirited and get personal nasty like always happens to me. I take the high road and you can keep flipping me off from down below.

Ever consider that I'm right? Ever? Do fans typically display any balance or objectivity? Do you think Vikings fans see their team clearly? Bears fans? Lions fans? Answer please.

Fans are fans because they are fanatical causing them to lose the ability to see clearly. I have a hard time calling myself a fan in the traditional sense because I don't care if a guy is a Packer or not...he will be looked at and considered as if he wasn't so that I can maintain my dignity and objectivity. The Kramer Hall thread is perfect example. I do not care if Jerry Kramer is a Packer or not. The guy is a jerk. Look at the spinning going on over there to try and make wpr feel like he was some kind of bad person or stalker because Kramer is an arrogant jerk. Would that happen if someone posted they met a Viking player? No chance in you know where. When you immediately have to knee jerk to defend the org and paint it in a positive light you've lost all credibility and objectivity. I don't have that in me to grab pom poms and skew reality to defend a jerk's behavior because he's a venerable Packer.

When did I attempt to "prove" the Packers would have a losing record? I wasn't even on the forum. I put a few things in shout that went over real well. Ha ha.

There is zero pessimism in me for this team. You have to call it that because how I see things is foreign to you and seeing you don't understand and it isn't in line with you it has to be pessimism because it's not giving you the desired feeling. I'm sorry. I'm not a guy who wants to fit in and rub elbows and have a feel good party. I like to discuss football and do so from MY perspective. I'm well aware of yours. I do believe you're clueless when it comes to mine because it doesn't make sense to you.

Further, these things always happen for one reason and one reason only. YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE PACKERS. I understand that you don't. I don't care. I'm not trying to be adversarial. I'm giving my perspective for discussion purposes. Again, sorry that you don't like it or agree with it or even comprehend it.

What happens is I get painted as a know it all because I don't accept the rah rah view. I hate it, actually. It's of no value to me. If someone posted: Boy, the Packers look great and are going to the SB! I would ask that person how the CB's are looking and where the pass rush is going to come from and about the depth on the OL. These aren't pessimistic questions. They're realistic question. If not for our swiss cheese defense, I think we'd be on a collision course for a ring this year. Sadly, I honestly believe this D is going to be terrible yet again. Anyone know who our Week 1 starting CB's are going to be? That's pretty sad that nobody could answer that factually. The choices are all less than appealing for every single spot... both outside spots and the slot. Oh, you're a pessimist. No. A realist. I don't pretend Atlanta didn't happen and that our secondary hasn't been awful for years. I suppose it would be more fun to pretend things are okay and try fooling myself and ride some self created high losing all my dignity and objectivity but, again, that is not me.

---

I dislike huge quote areas, especially if the reply is to a certain section (which it was) so that's why I cut a lot out. If your comment on objectivity was only about his over liking R. Rodgers then your right... BUT you really overused the objectivity line for anyone that disagrees with you in the past and your a different thinker but your not nearly as objective as you think you are.

I think because of your disdain for the raw ran type that you "over correct"... and over shoot objective to the point your the negative rah rah type at times... (which despite how annoying the raw ran type can be, the negative rah rah type is slightly worse)


Oh yeah, I know your right some of the time, and that's when I don't argue with you. You know football fairly well (like a number of others), but at times with logic you take assumption leaps, which is fine if you present them as theory but you present them as factual.

Semantic of the fan question is odd, because your using both "typically" and "any"...
Typically fans lean more towards rah rah than objectivity
But yes there have been some of all types that have been objective
only one Vikings fan and I was SHOCKED... but he'll no on all other Vikings fans I've been around.
Bears and Lions fans I've been around have been pretty down and objective on their team (and rightfully so as they sucked)
But last year you were down on the team (again) and they went to the playoffs (again)



This is the stuff I dislike about you... Packers had a bad record and you went around all cocky, telling everyone had you called it and predicted it.... they prove you wrong with a lot of wins and you pretend like you don't nothing about it. I guess you'd make a good DB with that extremely selective memory of yours.


And this is what I hate about you... you talk down to others... it's not foreign... some got the rah rah veiw... then we got you with the boo boo veiw. They're the same thing just on opposite perspective, neither one is close to being fair and having objectivity.

---

I'd never "mock" you Uffda! Sorry if you felt that way. Now am I going to give you a hard time sometimes because of your style? You bet 😂. But, when I respond, it is only because I find it worthy of a response.

I got no skin in the Rodgers game, I just report what I see. Go back and read my stuff on Rodgers; his rookie year was SENSATIONAL compared to other 1st year GB TEs. This shows he's a hard and competent worker, which should improve his growth path relative to other TEs. Year 2 I speak of my disappointment of his lack of growth especially in blocking. Year 3, I speak of his flat-lining and digression. And always my opinion was back by examples of his play. A.Rodgers skipped him in the progression many times, which evidences his digression was caused by A. Rodgers' play; but A. Rod has nothing to with his loss of ability to block over 3 years. He only makes the team this year because, he's cheap and only one that knows the system.

You were high on Brice before he ever played in GB. If you saw a quality no other scout saw and pointed it out, that would be impressive. But, you guessed about Brice and he wasn't bad; so everyone guesses at these UDFAs; some are right, so it's kinda silly for you to use it like a doctor having his Harvard diplomas on the wall . Read my assessment of Lane Taylor when he first started v. NOs. I was only worried about his consistency starting last year; but that's the main source of growth, young players get more consistent each year or wash out.

You're wrong on so many players like Perry and Adams comes form your reliance on stupid stuff, like Ted not drafting well in year one or your use of measurables One thing you need to realize, the Measurables that you have access to don't mean SHIT! They don't mean a damn thing! You're a speed guy, okay, speed is important, but you have NO IDEA how fast a player is by using a published 40 time at a combine or pro day. Those times are 100% meaningless when separated from evaluation of play and evaluation of a player's character and growth.

The single most important thing that separates good players from those cut is what kind of man they are and how well they can learn/take coaching or developing discipline and tools to overcome their learning difficulties.

First, thank you, Barfarn. I have a ton of respect for you. You are free to talk down or not. I'll handle it whether I like it or not. You are wrong about Brice. I was very very emphatic in my feelings about him. I didn't just meekly state I thought he could be a player. I said dogmatically he could change our defense with his speed and tenacity. You'll notice I was all over his ability to lay the wood...that wasn't something he was touted for. I read a report on him that he wasn't a big hitter. I simply disagreed and saw a guy who could flat out fly and hit like a truck. Nobody told me any of this...I saw it with my own eyes. I saw he had a horrific 3 cone and didn't get drafted but he had measurables that were fantastic and his "tape" was extremely impressive, therefore, I really put myself out there on him. You, again, are trying to dismiss me as irrelevant because you believe you are a superior judge of talent based on methodology. You claim I guessed on Brice? No. No guess. It is what I felt and I stated it over and over here. I feel strongly about Aaron Jones, not quite as strong, but I feel pretty good about him. You told me you watched all of RR's tape and he was set to be a star. I disagreed based on what I SAW. You saw one thing and I saw another. Again, you think your superior methodology = superior results. It didn't in the case of RR. Of course, now it must be that I just "guessed" on him because you were educated on him and I wasn't? No.

To beast...I'm not sure how to deal with you. If I tell you I don't think you understand, which I truly don't, then you consider me arrogant or talking down to you. I can't play your game so to speak. You have a view that is very incompatible with mine that you frankly do not understand. You make up things with no proof and then argue against those made up facts. STRAWMAN! I never predicted anything other than when this team was flailing early and Rodgers looking awful with the D that they were done. I didn't pre predict anything. I tried proving nothing. Yet, you MADE UP that I tried "proving" something.

You say you hate me or hate that I "talk down to others"...I honestly believe you don't get it at all when it comes to my views. I do not go out with an agenda to be "pessimistic" or "negative"...those PERCEPTIONS that YOU have are your WRONG perceptions. I know why I post what I post and quite frankly you don't. That's not talking down...it's the truth. I worked in sports media for a number of years and forced myself to see the teams I followed and enjoyed as I would any other team for objectivity sake. I can honestly say that how I once viewed the Packers to how I view them now is a total 180. That is not a shot at you or anyone else. I'm not trying to say I'm better or superior or anything other than I see things DIFFERENTLY. You are not a worse (or better) follower of this team than I am due to our divergent views on them.

My hope would be that you could come to see that I am not talking down to you, that I don't think I'm better, or smarter, rather that whatever pride you think I have only comes from knowing I see things differently than the usual fan. Again, saying that isn't some put down...it's the truth, is it not? I do tend to speak to what is wrong more than what is right not because I'm a pessimist but rather a perfectionist. I saw Jerry Rice answer a question one time about his biggest memory from his playing days. He said it was a fumble vs. the Giants in a playoff game that cost his team a win. Would you label Rice a pessimist? Most guys in his shoes would be bragging about some TD he caught in the SB but here he was lamenting a play he screwed up. He was a perfectionist and that's why he was so great. I'm not saying I'm Jerry Rice, however, I'm similar in how I see the world and especially the Packers.

When I look at an issue or post about it I see it in 360 degrees...not just one particular facet. The Bulaga thread is perfect example. I'm getting pummeled by you because the pick happened to work out for RT. That is not the sole issue...there are many issues with the Bulaga pick but I feel you put your fingers in your ears and want to focus on one part of it while completely ignoring several other aspects of his selection so you can stop and call me wrong and just say...he was a great pick! I fully understand why you do what you do and how you see because I used to be like that myself. Again, no slam. I'm not more evolved or enlightened, just different now and I know it rubs guys who are nothing but Packer positive the wrong way as it should just like Packer positives rub me the wrong way as they should due to our different "world views".

---