Bob McGinn (Packers win between 5 to 9 games)

Post #1 » by **paulpressey25** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 3:19 pm

McGinn has his prediction column today. I'm touting it simply because I agree with all of it.

Basically thinks the team's key players (Kampman, Driver, Clifton, Tauscher, Harris, Woodson, etc) are all getting older and TT did not draft smart this past draft. Cites examples of players the Packers could have gotten with the #1 pick and yet TT spends it on a #5 WR in Jordy Nelson.

He's seeing a team who had no major injuries the last two years now have key guys banged up. And not seeing where the defensive pressure will come from.

And he finally takes a small knock at TT for not using any of his $25mm in cap room for any purposes to help the team in 2009.

LUKE23 · Post #2 » by **LUKE23** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 3:29 pm

Pretty weak to predict "winning between 5 and 9 games". Way to go out a limb and make a firm prediction. Well, I predict the Packers win between 8 and 12 then.

None of those guys listed have an expected dropoff. OL can play into their mid 30's as long as they take care of their bodies. Kampman is in his athletic prime right now, how is he aging at age 28?

As far as injuries, we have no serious long-term ones of note to starters. I don't think we are in any worse shape overall injury-wise than a lot of other teams.

McGinn will be wrong.

Post #3 » by **MickeyDavis** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:00 pm

Yeah 5 to 9 is weak but his analysis is spot on.

Post #4 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:01 pm

I can see a five to eight win season, but that would mean that everything that could go wrong does. Saying that it's going to happen because of injuries is pretty weak. You can make that argument with every single team in the league.

Post #5 » by **ReasonablySober** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:05 pm

McGinn: 6-10
Silverstien: 11-5
Hunt: 10-6
Bedard: 10-6
Nickel: 11-5

Post #6 » by **Jollay** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:09 pm

Division's just too weak for a collapse to 5-6 wins.

But I could see 7-8 easily.

LUKE23 · Post #7 » by **LUKE23** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:10 pm

McGinn is also bitter about the Favre situation, so that needs to be taken into account. Some people just can't get over it yet, and it clouds their judgment.

Post #8 » by **MickeyDavis** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:13 pm

Actually the Favre bias is slanted in the other direction. Not every criticism leveled of the team is because of "bitterness". That's absolutely ridiculous.

LUKE23 · Post #9 » by **LUKE23** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:21 pm

I'm not saying it is. But predicting the team to win as few as 5 games just isn't based on any analysis that could be considered rational. Saying we might win 9, I'm fine with that, but under .500? There is nothing indicative of that happening unless we have major injury issues.

Post #10 » by **Jollay** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:21 pm

Outside of Wisconsin, people don't necessarily blame TT and management for going with Rodgers, but I've found it seems there's a near-consensus with non-Packer fans I know that the Packers absolutely mangled the situation.

That certainly deserves some criticism.

Post #11 » by **Jollay** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:24 pm

LUKE23 wrote:I'm not saying it is. But predicting the team to win as few as 5 games just isn't based on any analysis that could be considered rational. Saying we might win 9, I'm fine with that, but under .500? There is nothing indicative of that happening unless we have major injury issues.

Disagree. I think 7 wins is a perfectly acceptable prediction. I myself go 9, but I can understand 7.

5, yes I think that's a little silly.

rilamann · Post #12 » by **rilamann** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:50 pm

DrugBust wrote:I can see a five to eight win season, but that would mean that everything that could go wrong does. Saying that it's going to happen because of injuries is pretty weak. You can make that argument with every single team in the league.

Yea thats what I dont get with a lot of Packer fans and ecpsecially the Wisconsin media.It seems like when they make predictions they expect a bunch of keys injuries.I realy dont see fans and media from others teams that ''assume major injuries'' like that.

Its like they say ''we have a shot to go 10-6 but we will 6-10 because its a lock that the team will suffer a ton of injuries''.

My pet peeve along with you DB is you can say the same thing about every team.

Its like in that other thread a couple days ago when I mentioned that I thought the Packers had improved depth in the secondary from last season.Which was rebuted by the comment that if the Packers lost Woodson & Harris to injury we'd be in trouble.

Well if any team in the national football league lost both their starting corners their seconday would be in trouble.

The Wisconsin media also seems have a real pesimistic(sp)/glass half empty attitude with the Packers every year.

Heres my impression of the wis media making a season prediction on the Packers.

''The Packers went 14-2 last year & won the super bowl last season,they come back this year with no key FA losses a healthy roster and most players still in their prime,combine that with a strong draft last april I think if they can stay healthy the Packers have a shot to go 7-9''.

I swear man that Wis media making a Packers prediction.

rilamann · Post #13 » by **rilamann** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 4:51 pm

DrugBust wrote:I can see a five to eight win season, but that would mean that everything that could go wrong does. Saying that it's going to happen because of injuries is pretty weak. You can make that argument with every single team in the league.

Yea thats what I dont get with a lot of Packer fans and ecpsecially the Wisconsin media.It seems like when they make predictions they expect a bunch of keys injuries.I realy dont see fans and media from others teams that ''assume major injuries'' like that.

Its like they say ''we have a shot to go 10-6 but we will 6-10 because its a lock that the team will suffer a ton of injuries''.

My pet peeve along with you DB is you can say the same thing about every team.

Its like in that other thread a couple days ago when I mentioned that I thought the Packers had improved depth in the secondary from last season.Which was rebuted by the comment that if the Packers lost Woodson & Harris to injury we'd be in trouble.

Well if any team in the national football league lost both their starting corners their seconday would be in trouble.

The Wisconsin media also seems have a real pesimistic(sp)/glass half empty attitude with the Packers every year.

Heres my impression of the wis media making a season prediction on the Packers.

''The Packers went 14-2 last year & won the super bowl last season,they come back this year with no key FA losses a healthy roster and most players still in their prime,combine that with a strong draft last april I think if they can stay healthy the Packers have a shot to go 7-9''.

I swear man that Wis media making a Packers prediction.

Post #14 » by **paulpressey25** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 9:43 pm

McGinn last year predicted the team would go 10-6, win the central and be one of the top teams in the NFC. He could see in preseason last year what we all saw....a dominant defense that could keep you in the game.

This year in the preseason he's watched the same thing we've all seen....a really bad defense and an offensive line that appears to be a mess. BTW, unlike most media, McGinn watches every practice....and every game film without fail. This guy is not some chicken little media person.

BTW, McGinn is not bitter about the Favre situation. McGinn has wanted Favre out for the last two years and wrote some pointed columns here the last two months about how the Packers needed to get rid of Favre and take one step backward to take two steps ahead. McGinn is a TT guy through and through the last two years. But right now he's calling it as he sees it. Both lines are not in good shape right now. I agree with him. I think the strongest part of the team is the passing game with Rodgers and those receivers.

TheGhostDog · Post #15 » by **TheGhostDog** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 9:58 pm

I respect McGinn and usually agree with him but lately I do not know what he is thinking. First there was McGinn incorrectly reporting that Favre called Childress on a Packer-issued cell phone, then his shrill questions at the end of that Favre press conference, then there was McCarthy saying "you're killing me" in this weekend's (re what run-blocking packages we run) Q & A and now this Chicken Little 6-10 forecast. As for our defense, we must have been watching two different teams because to me our starting D looked very good in 3 out of 4 preseason games. Ah well, hopefully time will prove McGinn was way too pessimistic this season.

mbucks22 · Post #16 » by **mbucks22** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 10:36 pm

Only preseason game our D looked bad was against the Niners. Otherwise it looked pretty good. I don't see how he can look at our D in the preseason, when all the starters put it in cruise control, and come to a conclusion that we will be bad on defense when the games actually count. Look at the Lions. Went 4-0 in the preseason and then turn around and start out the year today by being picked apart by ATLANTA. I take what happens in the preseason with a grain of salt.

El Duderino · Post #17 » by **El Duderino** » Sun Sep 7, 2008 11:35 pm

Yea thats what I dont get with a lot of Packer fans and ecpsecially the Wisconsin media.It seems like when they make predictions they expect a bunch of keys injuries.I realy dont see fans and media from others teams that ''assume major injuries'' like that.

I think his point is that the Packers have been very fortunate in regards to injuries and the odds are against any team continuing to stay so injury free.

I don't we'll only win 6 games, especially in a weak division, but i do agree that the odds favor the Packers having more injuries than last season which could have a dramatic effect on the team depending on who actually gets hurt.

LUKE23 · Post #18 » by **LUKE23** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 2:46 am

Our first team D was good in 3 out of the 4 preseason games, and that is missing two HUGE KEY GUYS, Hawk and Pickett. I didn't see a "bad defense".

emunney · Post #19 » by **emunney** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 2:47 am

Everywhere except DT and QB I feel we're better set up to deal with injuries this year than last year. I feel that Tramon Williams, while still raw, is probably a starting caliber CB this year based on how he's taken instruction so far and just his extremely impressive physical tools. Blackmon's not bad, either. I'd almost rather have Rouse starting than Collins. Bishop and Chillar are both capable players.

On the offense, we have solid receivers for days, 2 solid fullbacks, 3 solid halfbacks... it's questionable who our five best OL are, so it's hard to say how badly injuries could even effect the interior line, though we would be in trouble if we lost Clifton or Tauscher for a significant stretch. I think we're perfectly well equipped to deal with an average amount of injuries, and better equipped than most teams to deal with significant injuries.

notoriousTJ11 · Post #20 » by **notoriousTJ11** » Mon Sep 8, 2008 2:35 pm

LUKE23 wrote:McGinn is also bitter about the Favre situation, so that needs to be taken into account. Some people just can't get over it yet, and it clouds their judgment.

McGinn is one of the first people who said it was time for the Packers to part with Favre as soon as the season ended so I don't know what you are talking about. On January 27th, days after the loss to the Giants Mcginn wrote an article titled "Big Changes Might be Necessary". In the article he talks about how Favre isn't a cold weather QB anymore and that it was time to go in another direction.

McGinn is also a man who absolutely loves Thompson. So you are completely wrong on this.