Packers Front Office Under Fire

[Heyjoe4]

Didn't we go through this before? Was there anyone else who agreed that the only team capable of winning was the team that did win?

Good point. I think that prior comment came from the Department of Redundancy Department.

 

[Heyjoe4]

Yeah I get that but that’s not the point tho. they could have gotten a number 2 receiver.. they thought Rodgers was on the decline they will never admit it but they did deep down they wanted to move on and now they don’t wanna look like idiots Rodgers will play til he sucks or his contract runs out pick up loves 5th year option and see what he does. If I was love I’d be pissed.. ha Green Bay should be dangling him to teams like the saints colts Patriots raiders while he still has some value

Good point about Love. I wish Gluten would admit selecting Love was a mistake and get what he can for him. New Orleans makes a great home for GB's 2nd string QBs. If the FO hasn't completely pissed him off, I'm hoping Rodgers sticks around for another 4 or 5 years. After an MVP year I doubt anyone wants to debate that he is in decline.

On a different subject, I was hoping they'd take Queen. Another commenter noted that Barnes played almost as well or better than Queen. Doesn't change the fact that Gluten could have taken a WR as well, but we've been down that road.

 

[GleefulGary]

Good point about Love. I wish Gluten would admit selecting Love was a mistake and get what he can for him. New Orleans makes a great home for GB's 2nd string QBs. If the FO hasn't completely pissed him off, I'm hoping Rodgers sticks around for another 4 or 5 years. After an MVP year I doubt anyone wants to debate that he is in decline.

On a different subject, I was hoping they'd take Queen. Another commenter noted that Barnes played almost as well or better than Queen. Doesn't change the fact that Gluten could have taken a WR as well, but we've been down that road.

We don’t know yet that it was a mistake.

 

[Heyjoe4]

We don’t know yet that it was a mistake.

In calling it a mistake, I was thinking about what else Gluten could have done with the pick. IMO he could have found someone to immediately help the team in a year where they clearly could compete for a SB, but were short a few pieces (notably WR and ILB). I understand there are two sides to the argument and that's fine. I hope they get something for Love - and that could range from the franchise QB of the future to trade bait to bust. Anyway the trade is done and we'll see how it plays out.

 

[rmontro]

Geez, at this point there are still two teams capable of winning the Super Bowl. After the game on Sunday there will only be one team left that actually was capable of winning it.

The Packers, which aren't even traveling to Tampa, are by definition not capable of winning it.

I have to admit, there is some sort of internal logic to this.

 

[PackerfaninCarolina]

In calling it a mistake, I was thinking about what else Gluten could have done with the pick. IMO he could have found someone to immediately help the team in a year where they clearly could compete for a SB, but were short a few pieces (notably WR and ILB). I understand there are two sides to the argument and that's fine. I hope they get something for Love - and that could range from the franchise QB of the future to trade bait to bust. Anyway the trade is done and we'll see how it plays out.

Well, in hindsight, although ...

Well, I'm still open to adding and possibly subtracting one or two underperformers to and from our WR core, but I'm not so sure that that was our problem in this last game. ILB may not be completely set yet, but it improved a lot this year and wasn't really a problem this last game either.

As was mentioned ... RT seems like it should have been better addressed. And who knows ... I've defended King a lot over the time he's been here, but after this last game ... It might be time to move on. It's possible maybe something could have been done better with a CB, RT, or DL pick instead of Love.

But it just seems like this loss was more on the coaches. Mike Pettine especially, and given his incompetence, I just don't know that an alternative pick to Love would have made the difference.

 

[GleefulGary]

I have to admit, there is some sort of internal logic to this.

Sure, in that right now, there are only two teams with the ability to win the Super Bowl left.

HOWEVER, there are more than two teams that were talented enough to win the Super Bowl.

Somebody is trying to make the former sound like the latter deliberately.

 

[Half Empty]

I have to admit, there is some sort of internal logic to this.

So, the Packers couldn't beat TB because they didn't, the macro view. Does that mean we don't get to dump on the players that, for instance, dropped receptions or interceptions that most of us here could catch, since, by not making the catch, we know they weren't capable of making it? The concept just keeps getting more interesting.

Also, there's something in the back of my mind that I'm sure relates to the "there are two today which could win the SB, but there will only be one of those which was actually capable when it's over". I know it's got something to do with a vision reference - I've got it...20/20 hindsight.

 

[rmontro]

Does that mean we don't get to dump on the players that, for instance, dropped receptions or interceptions that most of us here could catch, since, by not making the catch, we know they weren't capable of making it? The concept just keeps getting more interesting.

Well, you can't really dump on the players because they were chosen by someone else. But you can't really dump on Gute or the front office either, because they weren't capable of choosing the right capable players. And you can't really dump on the plays either because MLF wasn't capable of designing or calling the plays that would be capable of winning.

 

[Half Empty]

My head hurts, but I think you've got it. I now question why they give track and field athletes multiple attempts. If the pole vaulter couldn't clear the height on the first try, they're obviously incapable of doing it. Oh, wait, if they missed the first time, they were incapable of clearing it on the first try, but they might be capable on the second - unless they miss again, in which case they were incapable on the 2nd try, too. Now I'm making my head hurt more than you did.

 

[RRyder]

Geez, at this point there are still two teams capable of winning the Super Bowl. After the game on Sunday there will only be one team left that actually was capable of winning it.

The Packers, which aren't even traveling to Tampa, are by definition not capable of winning it.

So in the end the 16-0 Patriots weren't actually capable of winning the SB because they lost to the Giants?

How does one do the mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion? Is there a lot of stretching?

Hell let's not even stop at Football and say that there's a 94% Free Throw shooter, but he ends up missing one in clutch time, so he wasn't actually "capable" of making it. Such wonderful logic we have here

 

[Favre>Rodgers259]

But it just seems like this loss was more on the coaches. Mike Pettine especially, and given his incompetence, I just don't know that an alternative pick to Love would have made the difference.

But had he had an additional role player/contributor, the plays he "got right" could have been "righter" and the plays he "got wrong" could have been possibly negated with the additional of a quality rookie via the Draft.

Keep in mind that last play of the 1st half, Brady was a split second from getting sacked or at least hurried. And the play that ended it for us in the 4th could have been prevented by additional push up front.

But you can't really dump on Gute or the front office either, because they weren't capable of choosing the right capable players.

You could argue he was. There were 255 selections in the 2020 Draft, only 15 were Quarterbacks. With the Packers having the 26th Pick after the trade, there were 215 other players minimum that they could have selected with that pick.

 

[GleefulGary]

So in the end the 16-0 Patriots weren't actually capable of winning the SB because they lost to the Giants?

How does one do the mental gymnastics to come to that conclusion? Is there a lot of stretching?

Hell let's not even stop at Football and say that there's a 94% Free Throw shooter, but he ends up missing one in clutch time, so wasn't actually "capable" of making it. Such wonderful logic we have here

When everything is black and white, you have to see that this is very logical.

 

[rmontro]

You could argue he was. There were 255 selections in the 2020 Draft, only 15 were Quarterbacks. With the Packers having the 26th Pick after the trade, there were 215 other players minimum that they could have selected with that pick.

But you could argue that he wasn't capable of making another pick.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Good point about Love. I wish Gluten would admit selecting Love was a mistake and get what he can for him.

I agree that Gutekunst made a mistake selecting Love in the first round last year, possibly passing on a player that could have made an impact in 2020.

But there's no reason to trade him at this point.

Sure, in that right now, there are only two teams with the ability to win the Super Bowl left.

HOWEVER, there are more than two teams that were talented enough to win the Super Bowl.

That's actually the same. The Packers weren't talented enough to be capable of winning the Super Bowl.

So, the Packers couldn't beat TB because they didn't, the macro view. Does that mean we don't get to dump on the players that, for instance, dropped receptions or interceptions that most of us here could catch, since, by not making the catch, we know they weren't capable of making it?

The interesting part about your take is that you criticize the players for not making enough plays yet in your opinion they were somehow capable of beating the Bucs.

Also, there's something in the back of my mind that I'm sure relates to the "there are two today which could win the SB, but there will only be one of those which was actually capable when it's over". I know it's got something to do with a vision reference - I've got it...20/20 hindsight.

Of course you need to use hindsight to figure out which team was capable of winning the Super Bowl, I never mentioned anything different.

I now question why they give track and field athletes multiple attempts. If the pole vaulter couldn't clear the height on the first try, they're obviously incapable of doing it. Oh, wait, if they missed the first time, they were incapable of clearing it on the first try, but they might be capable on the second - unless they miss again, in which case they were incapable on the 2nd try, too. Now I'm making my head hurt more than you did.

Well, a pole vaulter was incapable of clearing a specific height until he actually makes it for the first time.

Unfortunately the Packers only get one shot per season at making the Super Bowl. They actually got two to beat the Bucs this year but who cares.

So in the end the 16-0 Patriots weren't actually capable of winning the SB because they lost to the Giants?

According to the Cambridge dictionary the definition of being capable of something is as follows:

having the ability, power or qualities to be able to do something.

There's no mentioning of theoretically being able to do something under the assumption of different what ifs happening or whatever. It's plain and simple being able to do something.

Therefore, by definition, the Patriots weren't capable of winning the Super Bowl in 2007.

Hell let's not even stop at Football and say that there's a 94% Free Throw shooter, but he ends up missing one in clutch time, so he wasn't actually "capable" of making it. Such wonderful logic we have here

That's a terrible comparison as a 94% free throw shooter has proven to be capable of making it. A miss doesn't change anything about that.

Unfortunately as mentioned above the Packers don't get such a margin for error though. They only have one shot at winning the Super Bowl and they didn't get it done this season, hence not being capable of.

They actually haven't been capable of even making it to the Super Bowl for 10 years.

 

[Half Empty]

As before, before more space is consumed, is there anyone else that uses the same definition of "capable" as CaptWIMM? If so, we can crank it up again. If not, we can move on. Please advise.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

As before, before more space is consumed, is there anyone else that uses the same definition of "capable" as CaptWIMM?

Yes, dictionaries.

 

[RRyder]

Yes, dictionaries.

You really have a hard time taking the L and moving on don't you?

BTW quoting the dictionary definition still doesn't help your argument. The fact that you think it does is staggering.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

You really have a hard time taking the L and moving on don't you?

BTW quoting the dictionary definition still doesn't help your argument. The fact that you think it does is staggering.

I don't have any issue admitting I was wrong.

Just take a look at this season, I was wrong about Dillon, the Packers offense struggling because of a lack of talent at wide receiver, the Bucs not getting anywhere close to the playoffs (that was a good one) and to a lesser degree doubting the Rams early in the year after they struggled against opponents from outside the NFC East.

I probably forgot to mention a ton of others I was wrong about as well.

But let me clear about one thing, that doesn't mean I will put more value into some random, smartass posters on a forum instead of the publishing business of one of the most prestigious universities in the world when it comes to the definition of a term.

In addition let's take a look at some cold hard facts about the Packers over the last 10 seasons.

Since winning the Super Bowl in 2010 they have played a total of 14 games against the eventual NFC champions in a respective season.

After beating the Giants in the regular season in 2011 they have currently lost 13 consecutive games against those opponents. Another thing to consider is that aside of those 2011 Giants none of the other NFC champions the Packers have faced have gone on to win the Super Bowl.

On top of it, the Packers have reached the NFCCG four times during that span. Each time, they faced an opponent they had already faced in the regular season as well. Each time, they lost both games.

So tell me, which facts support your take that they were talented enough to win the Super Bowl in any season since 2010???

I'll save you some time. You won't be able to find any but solely base that assumption on a ton of what ifs and other BS.

 

[swhitset]

I agree that Gutekunst made a mistake selecting Love in the first round last year, possibly passing on a player that could have made an impact in 2020.

But there's no reason to trade him at this point.



That's actually the same. The Packers weren't talented enough to be capable of winning the Super Bowl.



The interesting part about your take is that you criticize the players for not making enough plays yet in your opinion they were somehow capable of beating the Bucs.



Of course you need to use hindsight to figure out which team was capable of winning the Super Bowl, I never mentioned anything different.



Well, a pole vaulter was incapable of clearing a specific height until he actually makes it for the first time.

Unfortunately the Packers only get one shot per season at making the Super Bowl. They actually got two to beat the Bucs this year but who cares.



According to the Cambridge dictionary the definition of being capable of something is as follows:

having the ability, power or qualities to be able to do something.

There's no mentioning of theoretically being able to do something under the assumption of different what ifs happening or whatever. It's plain and simple being able to do something.

Therefore, by definition, the Patriots weren't capable of winning the Super Bowl in 2007.



That's a terrible comparison as a 94% free throw shooter has proven to be capable of making it. A miss doesn't change anything about that.

Unfortunately as mentioned above the Packers don't get such a margin for error though. They only have one shot at winning the Super Bowl and they didn't get it done this season, hence not being capable of.

They actually haven't been capable of even making it to the Super Bowl for 10 years.

This has got to be the most tortured logicI have ever read lol.

 

[RRyder]

I don't have any issue admitting I was wrong.

Just take a look at this season, I was wrong about Dillon, the Packers offense struggling because of a lack of talent at wide receiver, the Bucs not getting anywhere close to the playoffs (that was a good one) and to a lesser degree doubting the Rams early in the year after they struggled against opponents from outside the NFC East.

I probably forgot to mention a ton of others I was wrong about as well.

But let me clear about one thing, that doesn't mean I will put more value into some random, smartass posters on a forum instead of the publishing business of one of the most prestigious universities in the world when it comes to the definition of a term.

In addition let's take a look at some cold hard facts about the Packers over the last 10 seasons.

Since winning the Super Bowl in 2010 they have played a total of 14 games against the eventual NFC champions in a respective season.

After beating the Giants in the regular season in 2011 they have currently lost 13 consecutive games against those opponents. Another thing to consider is that aside of those 2011 Giants none of the other NFC champions the Packers have faced have gone on to win the Super Bowl.

On top of it, the Packers have reached the NFCCG four times during that span. Each time, they faced an opponent they had already faced in the regular season as well. Each time, they lost both games.

So tell me, which facts support your take that they were talented enough to win the Super Bowl in any season since 2010???

I'll save you some time. You won't be able to find any but solely base that assumption on a ton of what ifs and other BS.

Considering the definition does NOT include the prerequisite of needing to succeed in accomplishing the goal to be considered capable the fact that you think citing it is a point in your favor is just hilarious.

Your very citation is a point AGAINST you.

If you want to argue that the only team beyond a shadow of doubt that can be considered capable is the team that wins the championship have at it. You however are saying "nope 1 team at the end was capable. That's it. No others qualified".... And that's just not a smart argument by ANY dictionary definition

 

[Half Empty]

...and yet, it continues.

 

[longtimefan]

...and yet, it continues.

Ignore is your best friend

 

[Half Empty]

Yah, but ignoring 25,000+ posts means I actually might be missing something. However, I'll go with my middle ground of just not responding and see how that works.

 

[GleefulGary]

Yah, but ignoring 25,000+ posts means I actually might be missing something. However, I'll go with my middle ground of just not responding and see how that works.

How adult of you.