NFL 2010

[Brother None]

What a difference a year makes!

What? I can't read those sentences, they're obscured by the waves caused by your frantic backpedaling.

Maybe you could get him to stop talking about my dick. It's kind of skeeving me out.

Oh right. Twinkie, stop talking about Cimm's dick.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Was I wrong, they won the division, they won more games. Nobody remember who lost the AFCC game.

That you guys are more inclined than I to go back through old posts and find shit that was off the mark doesn't mean you never said things that didn't come to full fruition, please.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

Twinkie, stop talking about Cimm's dick.

Soon as he takes it out his mouth I will.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

What can I say, your eloquence speaks for itself.

 

[Brother None]

Was I wrong, they won the division, they won more games. Nobody remember who lost the AFCC game.

You're not making any sense. You're the one who just claimed the Pats are inferior to the Jets.

That you guys are more inclined than I to go back through old posts and find shit that was off the mark doesn't mean you never said things that didn't come to full fruition, please.

Heh. Well there's a difference in that most of us don't make sweeping generalizations and then insult the football knowledge of anyone who disagrees. I've come back to dumb shit I've said myself at times, it's fine, everyone's wrong at times, that's why it's football.

It amuses me that you're getting a bit tetchy here. What, shoe is on the other foot? Dude, you troll and insult people in these threads all the time, you've pretty much admitted as much yourself. It comes back to bite you in the ass, then deal with it. You can't put up the Masshole act forever without eventually pretty much annoying everyone.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

Was I wrong, they won the division, they won more games. Nobody remember who lost the AFCC game.

You're not making any sense. You're the one who just claimed the Pats are inferior to the Jets.

Yeah, I don't know that it's a black or white issue.
One team won more games. The other won the head to head matchups. One team won the division, the other beat them in an emotional road win. It's hard to call a clear cut winner there.

Do statements made a year ago prior to offseason without the knowledge of all the change that that brings not have an expiration date on them?

Heh. Well there's a difference in that most of us don't make sweeping generalizations and then insult the football knowledge of anyone who disagrees.

Key phrases being that I keep it in the realm of football, I don't do vulgar potty mouth flames against you guys personally (at least not until I've been told my dick is in my mouth 5 times). I think you need to reign your frat brother in there. He can't handle that I pointed out that some dude got a penalty in between all my effusive praise for his team. Touchy much?

Masshole

Speaking of sweeping generalizations, have you ever met anyone from Massachusetts firsthand?

 

[Brother None]

Do statements made a year ago prior to offseason without the knowledge of all the change that that brings not have an expiration date on them?

When they're sweeping generalization, then quite likely they do not.

I think you need to reign your frat brother in there.

That's cool. And I don't agree. When you purposefully post to annoy people like you constantly do, you will eventually annoy people. What am I supposed to do, protect you from yourself?

Speaking of sweeping generalizations, have you ever met anyone from Massachusetts firsthand?

I think so, yes. No Massholes though. It's not a generalization though. I don't have a stereotype I apply to Pats fans or any other fans. You act like a stereotype, which is why you're treated like one. Not the other way around.

 

[UniversalWolf]

Did the Packers run it a dozen times, even including the clock killing at the end? To their credit, running was not in the gameplan.

Starks was 11 for 52, I think. Pretty good, actually. Just enough running game to keep that offense clicking. It matched up particularly well with the Steelers because their great run stopping didn't help them much. The problem was covering Jones and Nelson (or Jennings or Driver) with the third and fourth defenders in the secondary. Reminded me of the Atlanta game in that way. One of those guys was always open.

The Packers have a strange dilemma with personnel for next season. Because they had so many players who were added or promoted who proved to be quality starters, there just aren't going to be near enough roster spots for them all, especially when you add next year's rookie class. ILB is a good example. Barnett went to IR, and Bishop played great, but you can't start Hawk, Barnett, and Bishop, so someone's going to be the odd man out. Similar "problem" with safety. Burnett was the starter, but Peprah surprised everyone and had a great season. Bigby's in the mix too, but I assume he'll be gone. Still, is Peprah the starter next year, or Burnett? They're going to have to let some good players go, unfortunately.

Heard a rumor that the Titans are interested in trading for Matt Flynn. Unless it's a great offer, I hope GB keep him.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

The Packers have a strange dilemma with personnel for next season. Because they had so many players who were added or promoted who proved to be quality starters, there just aren't going to be near enough roster spots for them all, especially when you add next year's rookie class.

P. Good dilemma to have, if you ask me. I've had TT's back since day one and I don't think I'll start doubting him now.

ILB is a good example. Barnett went to IR, and Bishop played great, but you can't start Hawk, Barnett, and Bishop, so someone's going to be the odd man out.

The easy hypothesis is that since Bishop was given a contract/extension, Barnett is sold for a hamburger as long as AJ's contract gets reworked.

Similar "problem" with safety. Burnett was the starter, but Peprah surprised everyone and had a great season. Bigby's in the mix too, but I assume he'll be gone. Still, is Peprah the starter next year, or Burnett?

Bigby will be gone and Burnett and Peprah will be competing for the starting role. Burnett will most likely get it. Funny, you didn't even mention the most interesting one:

Starks v. Grant, wherein the benefit of the doubt will likely go to Grant but will ultimately lose out to the higher sense of natural RB instincts inherent in Starks. That's right, folks...you heard it all here first!

 

[Brother None]

Starks v. Grant, wherein the benefit of the doubt will likely go to Grant but will ultimately lose out to the higher sense of natural RB instincts inherent in Starks. That's right, folks...you heard it all here first!

Really? For all evidence Starks is just another guy. Jackson's a FA right? In any case he's a liability as a runner if good at every other part. Ryan Grant is ok but he's 28 and returning from injury.
I'd kinda expect the Packers to draft a RB though I don't believe this is the strongest class.

I might be too harsh on Starks though.

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

I might be too harsh on Starks though.

Barely coached and the kid came in and started averaging consistent 4+ yardage per carry in the damn playoffs ffs! You watch the tape and can tell he has natural RB instincts. Good cuts, jukes, good at bouncing off the linemen when things get bottled up, good speed. Grant was just a one cut and run fast guy and half the time would just run into his own linemen. I think Starks had only 2 or 3 runs the entire post-season for negative yardage. I stand by my prediction.

TT ain't gonna draft anyone for "need" though. His philosophy is "best available player on the board" which is what he'll do as long as he's with us. Suits me fine, and is why we never drain our cache of funds as a team, and were able to pull out a Super Bowl win with 17 injured starters.

 

[DammitBoy]

Watch kharm draft starks next year in fantasy football...

 

[Nology5890]

Did the Packers run it a dozen times, even including the clock killing at the end? To their credit, running was not in the gameplan.

Starks was 11 for 52, I think. Pretty good, actually. Just enough running game to keep that offense clicking. It matched up particularly well with the Steelers because their great run stopping didn't help them much. The problem was covering Jones and Nelson (or Jennings or Driver) with the third and fourth defenders in the secondary. Reminded me of the Atlanta game in that way. One of those guys was always open.

The Packers have a strange dilemma with personnel for next season. Because they had so many players who were added or promoted who proved to be quality starters, there just aren't going to be near enough roster spots for them all, especially when you add next year's rookie class. ILB is a good example. Barnett went to IR, and Bishop played great, but you can't start Hawk, Barnett, and Bishop, so someone's going to be the odd man out. Similar "problem" with safety. Burnett was the starter, but Peprah surprised everyone and had a great season. Bigby's in the mix too, but I assume he'll be gone. Still, is Peprah the starter next year, or Burnett? They're going to have to let some good players go, unfortunately.

Heard a rumor that the Titans are interested in trading for Matt Flynn. Unless it's a great offer, I hope GB keep him.

Miami will gladly take Atari off your hands. We need some semblance of veterancy in our secondary, and if loading it with former GB players is the way to do it, then I'll take that.

 

[UniversalWolf]

P. Good dilemma to have, if you ask me. I've had TT's back since day one and I don't think I'll start doubting him now.

Yeah, one of the nice side-effects of this championship is that it has the irrational Ted-haters in hiding. Their arguments never made sense to me, and now I don't have to listen to them anymore.

The easy hypothesis is that since Bishop was given a contract/extension, Barnett is sold for a hamburger as long as AJ's contract gets reworked.

I think Barnett's gone. Whether he gets traded or released remains to be seen, but his Twitter activity probably sealed his fate. That and Bishop living up to what I thought he was for the past three years.

Starks v. Grant, wherein the benefit of the doubt will likely go to Grant but will ultimately lose out to the higher sense of natural RB instincts inherent in Starks.

I think they keep Grant, Starks, and Jackson. I'm not sure where Grant acquired this reputation of being just average, but it isn't true. His injury was a high ankle sprain, not a knee or anything that ought to slow him down. As far as I know, Grant is completely healthy right now, so there shouldn't be any problem with that for next season. I like Starks, but he's not good at blitz pickups yet, and he doesn't have the track record to have the starting job handed to him.

Jackson takes a lot of crap, but he's extremely good at pass protection and he's a very good receiver. He made several clutch plays throughout the playoffs.

Miami will gladly take Atari off your hands. We need some semblance of veterancy in our secondary, and if loading it with former GB players is the way to do it, then I'll take that.

He's almost certainly gone from the Pack. Signing him is a gamble because he can't seem to stay healthy for more than a few games every season, but he's a pretty good player when he's ambulatory. Not particularly fast, but he's a hard hitter with decent hands. If you had him for a full season, he'd be a good addition. Keep in mind he was supplanted by both Morgan Burnett and Charlie Peprah this year, so don't get your hopes too high.

Other positions where Green Bay have too many players to keep: TE - Finley, Lee, Quarless, Crabtree, Havner - and LOLB - Chillar, Zombo, Poppinga, Jones, Walden.

BTW, did I mention that Jarrett Bush can't cover pancakes with syrup? I did? Good.