lol…fell right into that one.
Seriously though I am quite please at the loss yesterday, we all now Ryan is delusional at least this will now make him face reality.
Greg Jennings this morning on XM NFL radio, “I dont want a Packers franchise tag”. I dont take offence to this by no means but I dont think he will be here next season. With Rodgers and Matthews contracts ending soon, I think they will let him go to make cap room for them and much needed OL and DL picks. He is a great reciever but I think he can be replaced. We have already seen it.
[quote]bond james bond wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
Wow[/quote]
Yep
[/quote]
Okay my friend IMO that was just a good game even if Dallas lost I would say the same thing.
Can the sucks, i mean jets, please go away now. What a joke.
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Greg Jennings this morning on XM NFL radio, “I dont want a Packers franchise tag”. I dont take offence to this by no means but I dont think he will be here next season. With Rodgers and Matthews contracts ending soon, I think they will let him go to make cap room for them and much needed OL and DL picks. He is a great reciever but I think he can be replaced. We have already seen it. [/quote]
Yeah man, Packers and Patriots are pretty good at re-tooling especially in regards to WR’s and RB’s. I think in the long run their techniques of managing recievers and RB’s will become the norm, and when you take a big step back from the whole thing, spending big $ on WR’s and RB’s isn’t very fiscally responsible.
WR’s are directly involved with what, maybe 20% of all offensive plays? RB’s would be moreso but their longevity and “freshness” are the first to show signs of wear.
I also like Greg Jennings. He’s a pretty good WR, and he’s one helluva Green Bay Packer, if that makes any sense. That being said, I’m sure he’ll succeed with another squad and be a highlight maker anywhere he goes, but for the Packers to re-sign him along with a hefty contract? Doesn’t make sense, especially when it’s been proven that #12 can work with multiple WR’s to make plays and win.
Teams that are in a good spot to make these sorts of decisions need to look at San Diego and how they handled Ladanian Tomlinson/Michael Turner.
Turner was a stud horse, should have been re-signed while LT should have been thanked and showed the door. Instead they lose Turner with nothing in return and lose LT a season later because his performance dropped off so terribly. There is a way you can respect the player and still move him, and because he’s a household name shouldn’t factor into that if he’s getting too old or expensive.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Greg Jennings this morning on XM NFL radio, “I dont want a Packers franchise tag”. I dont take offence to this by no means but I dont think he will be here next season. With Rodgers and Matthews contracts ending soon, I think they will let him go to make cap room for them and much needed OL and DL picks. He is a great reciever but I think he can be replaced. We have already seen it. [/quote]
Yeah man, Packers and Patriots are pretty good at re-tooling especially in regards to WR’s and RB’s. I think in the long run their techniques of managing recievers and RB’s will become the norm,
[/quote]
Well it always helps when you have a Brady or Rogers. Not so much if you have a Rivers or Romo
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Greg Jennings this morning on XM NFL radio, “I dont want a Packers franchise tag”. I dont take offence to this by no means but I dont think he will be here next season. With Rodgers and Matthews contracts ending soon, I think they will let him go to make cap room for them and much needed OL and DL picks. He is a great reciever but I think he can be replaced. We have already seen it. [/quote]
Yeah man, Packers and Patriots are pretty good at re-tooling especially in regards to WR’s and RB’s. I think in the long run their techniques of managing recievers and RB’s will become the norm,
[/quote]
Well it always helps when you have a Brady or Rogers. Not so much if you have a Rivers or Romo
[/quote]
I see what you’re saying buddy, but could all those names be interchangeable if SD and Dallas used their first and second round pics for OL’s instead of sexy #88’s and whatnot?
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Greg Jennings this morning on XM NFL radio, “I dont want a Packers franchise tag”. I dont take offence to this by no means but I dont think he will be here next season. With Rodgers and Matthews contracts ending soon, I think they will let him go to make cap room for them and much needed OL and DL picks. He is a great reciever but I think he can be replaced. We have already seen it. [/quote]
Yeah man, Packers and Patriots are pretty good at re-tooling especially in regards to WR’s and RB’s. I think in the long run their techniques of managing recievers and RB’s will become the norm,
[/quote]
Well it always helps when you have a Brady or Rogers. Not so much if you have a Rivers or Romo
[/quote]
I see what you’re saying buddy, but could all those names be interchangeable if SD and Dallas used their first and second round pics for OL’s instead of sexy #88’s and whatnot?[/quote]
Agree 1 million percent my Friend. Hey last year we picked a Left tackle in first round. And Murray in the 3rd, not a bad draft when you think about it.
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Greg Jennings this morning on XM NFL radio, “I dont want a Packers franchise tag”. I dont take offence to this by no means but I dont think he will be here next season. With Rodgers and Matthews contracts ending soon, I think they will let him go to make cap room for them and much needed OL and DL picks. He is a great reciever but I think he can be replaced. We have already seen it. [/quote]
Yeah man, Packers and Patriots are pretty good at re-tooling especially in regards to WR’s and RB’s. I think in the long run their techniques of managing recievers and RB’s will become the norm,
[/quote]
Well it always helps when you have a Brady or Rogers. Not so much if you have a Rivers or Romo
[/quote]
I see what you’re saying buddy, but could all those names be interchangeable if SD and Dallas used their first and second round pics for OL’s instead of sexy #88’s and whatnot?[/quote]
Agree 1 million percent my Friend. Hey last year we picked a Left tackle in first round. And Murray in the 3rd, not a bad draft when you think about it.[/quote]
I think that’s going to be the trend in the upcoming years to be honest. Sure the QB’s and heisman winners will be first rounders, no stopping that, but core/everydown assetts will be the first to be picked after that.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Greg Jennings this morning on XM NFL radio, “I dont want a Packers franchise tag”. I dont take offence to this by no means but I dont think he will be here next season. With Rodgers and Matthews contracts ending soon, I think they will let him go to make cap room for them and much needed OL and DL picks. He is a great reciever but I think he can be replaced. We have already seen it. [/quote]
Yeah man, Packers and Patriots are pretty good at re-tooling especially in regards to WR’s and RB’s. I think in the long run their techniques of managing recievers and RB’s will become the norm,
[/quote]
Well it always helps when you have a Brady or Rogers. Not so much if you have a Rivers or Romo
[/quote]
I see what you’re saying buddy, but could all those names be interchangeable if SD and Dallas used their first and second round pics for OL’s instead of sexy #88’s and whatnot?[/quote]
Agree 1 million percent my Friend. Hey last year we picked a Left tackle in first round. And Murray in the 3rd, not a bad draft when you think about it.[/quote]
I think that’s going to be the trend in the upcoming years to be honest. Sure the QB’s and heisman winners will be first rounders, no stopping that, but core/everydown assetts will be the first to be picked after that.[/quote]
Difference between College and Pro is the OL and DL. Maybe JJ should go manage Arkansas
[quote]MattyXL wrote:
lol…fell right into that one.
Seriously though I am quite please at the loss yesterday, we all now Ryan is delusional at least this will now make him face reality.[/quote]
Used to think that myself but am not so sure anymore. I think he’s just trying to do the best with the shit sandwich of a hand he’s been dealt in terms of a playing list.
Yeah I know he has a say in putting together the list but:
-
that’d be mainly with regards to the defense
-
Tanny and Woody are his bosses. There’s only so many times you can challenge your boss, and you never get to overrule them.
What Rex isn’t is a guy who shits on his team publicly, despite being aware (I’m sure) what a fucking train wreck it is.
Well at least Woody is coming away from this season happy. Check out the top 10 selling jerseys in the NFL ending November:
RG3, Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Eli Manning, Tom Brady, Andrew Luck, Victor Cruz, Tim Tebow, Troy Polamalu, and Patrick Willis.
All a bunch of All-Pro superstars right? Oh fuck wait …
Greg McElroy to go against the Chargers on Sunday in the toilet bowl!
[quote]strungoutboy21 wrote:
Greg McElroy to go against the Chargers on Sunday in the toilet bowl![/quote]
damn, i wish they would have kept that game in it’s national TV spot, and not flexed in niners/seahawks
Im sure all the players parents will like the empty stadium.
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
The Niners won but anyone who thinks the Niners are better than the Pats after watching that game, especially when the Pats have Gronk, has probably sucked too much dick in San Francisco.[/quote]
I’m confused your saying the team that lost is better? interesting world you live in.
NFC rules
I really am stumped in deciding who is the top team in the league. I guess by default Atlanta? I mean you could make a case for every top 10 team and a case against them. Just a crazy season.
[quote]BradTGIF wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
Greg Jennings this morning on XM NFL radio, “I dont want a Packers franchise tag”. I dont take offence to this by no means but I dont think he will be here next season. With Rodgers and Matthews contracts ending soon, I think they will let him go to make cap room for them and much needed OL and DL picks. He is a great reciever but I think he can be replaced. We have already seen it. [/quote]
Yeah man, Packers and Patriots are pretty good at re-tooling especially in regards to WR’s and RB’s. I think in the long run their techniques of managing recievers and RB’s will become the norm, and when you take a big step back from the whole thing, spending big $ on WR’s and RB’s isn’t very fiscally responsible.
WR’s are directly involved with what, maybe 20% of all offensive plays? RB’s would be moreso but their longevity and “freshness” are the first to show signs of wear.
I also like Greg Jennings. He’s a pretty good WR, and he’s one helluva Green Bay Packer, if that makes any sense. That being said, I’m sure he’ll succeed with another squad and be a highlight maker anywhere he goes, but for the Packers to re-sign him along with a hefty contract? Doesn’t make sense, especially when it’s been proven that #12 can work with multiple WR’s to make plays and win.
Teams that are in a good spot to make these sorts of decisions need to look at San Diego and how they handled Ladanian Tomlinson/Michael Turner.
Turner was a stud horse, should have been re-signed while LT should have been thanked and showed the door. Instead they lose Turner with nothing in return and lose LT a season later because his performance dropped off so terribly. There is a way you can respect the player and still move him, and because he’s a household name shouldn’t factor into that if he’s getting too old or expensive.
[/quote]
I agree. Jennings is a talented player and will succeed wherever he goes as long as he has at least an average QB. I hope the best for him.
Im calling he goes to the Vikings. You heard me.
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
I really am stumped in deciding who is the top team in the league. I guess by default Atlanta? I mean you could make a case for every top 10 team and a case against them. Just a crazy season.[/quote]
Even some of the middle of the pack teams can be the top team on any given day. If it might go with Denver
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
I really am stumped in deciding who is the top team in the league. I guess by default Atlanta? I mean you could make a case for every top 10 team and a case against them. Just a crazy season.[/quote]
Even some of the middle of the pack teams can be the top team on any given day. If it might go with Denver[/quote]
It changes every week according to the experts. I’d say the two best teams in the AFC are the Patriots and Broncos. I know the Texans beat the Broncos in week 3, but I feel the Broncos are on such a roll right now that they could beat them.
[quote]farmerson12 wrote:
I really am stumped in deciding who is the top team in the league. I guess by default Atlanta? I mean you could make a case for every top 10 team and a case against them. Just a crazy season.[/quote]
Atlanta looked good against the Giants, but the Niners would fucking manhandle those fags. The Falcons haven’t looked like they respond well when they get punched right in their goddamned mouths, which is exactly what the Niners do to teams not named the New York Giants.