Five knee-jerk reactions to Packers first training camp practice

[Deleted member 6794]

No, I criticize AJ for not being able to get to opposing ballcarriers (I understand the number of tackles - the problem is where they were made). He probably was a 'good' LB, at least until his last year or two.

Hawk was an average linebacker at best over his entire career and absolutely terrible during the last two seasons. Thompson spending the fifth overall pick on him was most likely one of his poorest selections although I have to admit that the overall talent level in the 2006 draft turned out to be pretty poor.

 

[Half Empty]

Hawk was an average linebacker at best over his entire career and absolutely terrible during the last two seasons. Thompson spending the fifth overall pick on him was most likely one of his poorest selections although I have to admit that the overall talent level in the 2006 draft turned out to be pretty poor.

Absolutely not trying to pick a fight. Just pointing out how subjective and semantically-challenged a forum like this can be. I THINK you're agreeing with me, but it's certainly possible that your point is that AJ was even worse than I described. However, 'average' and 'good' seem, to me, to be hair-splitting, and 'absolutely terrible during the last two seasons' isn't much different than 'except for the last year or two'. This post just seemed to be the 'post'er child for the concept.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

I THINK you're agreeing with me, but it's certainly possible that your point is that AJ was even worse than I described.

Actually I tried to point out that Hawk was even worse than you described in your previous post.

 

[Half Empty]

Yes, I think it was well over the top. Much of the language was downright mean-spirited. We are talking about a team that wins the division every year. Some people have a serious problem with keyboard control.

Which of those guys do you think were deserving of better reviews, and how is it mean-spirited to point out deficiencies in production? Isn't that one of the purposes of a sports forum? People are stating opinions, and many of them are quite passionate, hence some pretty derogatory statements.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

OK, you're crazy. Of course, you correctly began your post with "IMO", and I guess that means you're right, since you defined the parameter. I, on the other hand, have the opinion that a "championship caliber" player is one who (a) demonstrates the appropriate talent for longer than a championship game (or even a championship season) and who (b) could be expected to bring that championship to a team just at the verge. Guess this is one of those 'agree to disagree' situations.

Your definition of a championship-caliber player is very good. I'd add that such a player steps up in a big way at "money time" and actually I read that into your definition.

It's why, IMO, Peyton Manning is not a championship-caliber player. The only championship that really counts in the NFL is the SB, and Peyton has choked twice when those bright lights were on. I'm not discounting all players who have only one or even no rings. Some guys just play lights out when the pressure isn't high. The pressure couldn't be higher than in the SB.

In their only SB appearance (so far), ARod and CMIII stepped up when it was on the line. Championship caliber. That said, they need to cement this status with another ring, or two. At any rate, I like your definition.

 

[GoPGo]

No, I criticize AJ for not being able to get to opposing ballcarriers (I understand the number of tackles - the problem is where they were made). He probably was a 'good' LB, at least until his last year or two. That, in my mind, does not equate to being a 'championship caliber' player, which was your point. Mine was that being on the 2010 team doesn't make a particular individual superior (which is how I defined a championship caliber player).

Okay, whatever. Since your definition of what makes a player a "championship caliber player" is 100% subjective, who cares?

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

IMO, being a so-called "championship caliber" player would logically mean being a player who is capable of playing his position to a degree well enough to help win a championship. But call me crazy

I think you and Half Empty might actually be agreeing. And hey we're all crazy. I believe championship caliber players step up at money time, which of course means winning championships and on that last point we all agree.

There are some players that just really step up when faced with "win or go home". Using a basketball analogy, that defines the NY Knicks in the Walt Frazier era. (Yes I'm that old.). For years they'd play good, not great in the regular season, but many times came away with the trophy. Actually the Ravens really seem to step it up once they're in the playoffs, regardless of their seed. The Packers did this as well in 2010. These teams have championship caliber players, guys with ice water in their veins - I like to simply call them "money players".

 

[GoPGo]

There are some players that just really step up when faced with "win or go home". Using a basketball analogy, that defines the NY Knicks in the Walt Frazier era. (Yes I'm that old.). For years they'd play good, not great in the regular season, but many times came away with the trophy. Actually the Ravens really seem to step it up once they're in the playoffs, regardless of their seed.

I'm not a baseball fan, but I think the '69 Mets define what you're talking about.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Which of those guys do you think were deserving of better reviews, and how is it mean-spirited to point out deficiencies in production? Isn't that one of the purposes of a sports forum? People are stating opinions, and many of them are quite passionate, hence some pretty derogatory statements.

As for AJ Hawk, wow he was NOT a championship caliber player, ring or not. Trent Dilfer has a ring. It surprises me there can be this much contention over a player like AJ.

I get in trouble when I say Peyton Manning is not championship caliber. That's very subjective and people could have good reasons to disagree. That's why we have forums. I'm not above having someone point something out that could change my mind. But I don't want to argue, although I plead guilty to stooping to this level. No more. If it's not an honest exchange of opinions I'll just ignore it.

So with all that is it mean-spirited for me to call Peyton a choker? I don't think so.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

I'm not a baseball fan, but I think the '69 Mets define what you're talking about.

That's a better example than mine. Thanks. Yeah everyone was discounting their regular season play and in spite of all that, they didn't choke. Quite the opposite. A championship is never won by an undeserving team. Aside from deflate gate, the Pats and Bellichik stayed cool while the Seahawks panicked in the last SB. That's what money guys do. I don't like BB, the Pats, or the Hawks. But I will acknowledge brilliance even though some call that luck. I don't believe in luck, except to the extent that money players know how to create it.

 

[Half Empty]

Okay, whatever. Since your definition of what makes a player a "championship caliber player" is 100% subjective, who cares?

Apparently, you do. How many posts here are anything less than 100% subjective (and worth discussing, in my 100% subjective opinion)?

 

[Half Empty]

Your definition of a championship-caliber player is very good. I'd add that such a player steps up in a big way at "money time" and actually I read that into your definition.

It's why, IMO, Peyton Manning is not a championship-caliber player. The only championship that really counts in the NFL is the SB, and Peyton has choked twice when those bright lights were on. I'm not discounting all players who have only one or even no rings. Some guys just play lights out when the pressure isn't high. The pressure couldn't be higher than in the SB.

In their only SB appearance (so far), ARod and CMIII stepped up when it was on the line. Championship caliber. That said, they need to cement this status with another ring, or two. At any rate, I like your definition.

As an aside, don't waste time trying to get into an honest debate with a couple of posters on this forum. These folks seem to have a need to "win the argument" when there's no argument in the first place, just an exchange of opinions. After banging my head against that wall, I've decided to not engage anymore with such insecure people. As I said, it's a waste of time. You seem like an honest, intelligent person. Nice to have that here for a change.

I do find the list of 'disagree' telling.

 

[PikeBadger]

Which of those guys do you think were deserving of better reviews, and how is it mean-spirited to point out deficiencies in production? Isn't that one of the purposes of a sports forum? People are stating opinions, and many of them are quite passionate, hence some pretty derogatory statements.

I'm fine with criticism of performance. It reflects poorly on the poster when they personalize their remarks with invective terminology. Actually, flaming calls their overall credibility into question imo. It's hard to take angry little people seriously.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

EVERYBODY is happy here !!!

 

[TJV]

However, 'average' and 'good' seem, to me, to be hair-splitting, and 'absolutely terrible during the last two seasons' isn't much different than 'except for the last year or two'.

IMO "average" puts a player right in the middle of the players under consideration. "Good" is above average, a clear step up from average. And I think 'absolutely terrible during the last two seasons' is a much worse characterization than ' he was good except for the last two years'. IMO Hawk's biggest problem was the expectations that resulted from where he was drafted. Until the last couple of years...

As to certain posters here, I find it funny and ironic that one who attacks others with personal insults, once for no good reason at all and another when he responded to the wrong post, complains about others here. He’s also the one who ends posts with “End of story” as if he’s the last word on a subject. And after those actions lacks the self-awareness to the extent of calling others insecure. Who slings personal insults for no reason except the insecure?

 

[HardRightEdge]

EVERYBODY is happy here !!!

What!? Did I miss it?! Did the Pack with the Superbowl when I wasn't looking!?

 

[HardRightEdge]

Using a basketball analogy, that defines the NY Knicks in the Walt Frazier era. (Yes I'm that old.).

Apropos of nothing at all, I think of it as the "Willis Reed era". 1970 NBA finals, Game 7, Reed emerges limping from the tunnel. The Garden erupts. Reed limps down the court to score the first 2 hoops. The Garden goes insane. Wilt wilts. A legendary, watershed moment for the franchise. Frazier was a great player, but I can't recall any one specific thing about him but the clothes.

 

[Half Empty]

IMO "average" puts a player right in the middle of the players under consideration. "Good" is above average, a clear step up from average. And I think 'absolutely terrible during the last two seasons' is a much worse characterization than ' he was good except for the last two years'. IMO Hawk's biggest problem was the expectations that resulted from where he was drafted. Until the last couple of years...

Once you start with "IMO", (a) you're correct in virtually anything you say and (b) that's my point about semantics. I consider average to be right in there with OK, serviceable, and yes, good. When I said AJ was probably good, until the last year or two, the implied point was that he was now below good - in some minds that's absolutely terrible, probably not the term I'd use, but certainly in line with my position that he had dropped off significantly. If someone wanted to sing his praises for his last year or two, that's another discussion. Otherwise, IMO, average and good are reasonably similar, as are terrible and a dropoff from good. All those descriptions mean nobody cringed when he took the field until the last year or two, when we did.

 

[TJV]

Not a big deal but here’s a less subjective comparison from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Good: of high quality; of somewhat high but not excellent quality.
Average: a level that is typical of a group, class, or series; a middle point between extremes.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

What!? Did I miss it?! Did the Pack with the Superbowl when I wasn't looking!?

You're a miserable bugger !

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Apropos of nothing at all, I think of it as the "Willis Reed era". 1970 NBA finals, Game 7, Reed emerges limping from the tunnel. The Garden erupts. Reed limps down the court to score the first 2 hoops. The Garden goes insane. Wilt wilts. A legendary, watershed moment for the franchise. Frazier was a great player, but I can't recall any one specific thing about him but the clothes.

"Walt Frazier era" not just Walt Frazier. Read a little more carefully. He and his team won a lot of championships. That was the point. Not that he was the greatest player on that team. That Willis Reed moment was special. Similar to when Michael Jordan played with the flu and willed himself to win that game.

 

[Mondio]

Flu? Or food poisoning?

 

[HardRightEdge]

"Walt Frazier era" not just Walt Frazier. Read a little more carefully. He and his team won a lot of championships. That was the point. Not that he was the greatest player on that team. That Willis Reed moment was special. Similar to when Michael Jordan played with the flu and willed himself to win that game.

I think of it as the "Willis Reed era"...like I just said.

 

[Joe Nor Cal Packer]

Flu? Or food poisoning?

One or the other! I remember he was so dehydrated he stopped sweating in the fourth quarter.

 

[adambr2]

I have a hard time criticizing the Hawk pick. He disappointed, but at the time it was seen as a no brainer pick around the league for us at 5.

I'm more annoyed with trying to get too cute and be the smartest guy in the room with picks like Harrell. If you're going to go completely against the grain, you better be right.