Predict our record

[PkrsBcksGphsMqt]

An excellent summary of WB's trolling/fakery:

viewtopic.php?f=42&t=1263017&start=60#p36549471

Thank you for sharing.

[UWM_Brew_Buck]

I think we finish 12-4 with a good (for the NFL) chance of winning a Super Bowl. With Rodgers at QB we are a contender every year for it. I think we have a 10% chance at winning the SB without an improved D or running game.

If our defense improves with a healthy Perry, improved Daniels, Raji on a contract year , Jolly not suspended, not playing Walden and Moses I think it will jump up to 20%. If we have a running game that we saw with Lacy against STL add another 10%. With a dynamic RB this offense becomes insane, the offense has been great with defenses having zero respect for our run game. I would love to add the thoughts of Lacy running over their secondary in the back of the defenses heads.

I'm very excited to see how this year plays out with Lacy and the defense this year.

[gbmb34]

The whole "Packers not having a good enough backup QB" is literally one of the dumbest complaints I've heard about a sports team from its respective fan base.

Without even mentioning that the Packers had one of the better backup QBs in the league for a few years with Flynn, but here are the backup quarterbacks for other Super Bowl contenders in the NFL.

Seattle - Tarvaris Jackson
San Francisco - Colt McCoy, B.J. Daniels
New England - Ryan Mallet
Denver - Zac Dysert, Brock Osweiler
New Orleans - Luke McCown
Atlanta - Dominique Davis
Houston - Case Keenum, T.J. Yates

Bottom line is none of those teams are winning more than 6 games with any of those QBs, and only Jackson, Yates, McCown and Colt McCoy have even played significant snaps in the NFL.

[Bucksfans1and2]

The whole "Packers not having a good enough backup QB" is literally one of the dumbest complaints I've heard about a sports team from its respective fan base.

Without even mentioning that the Packers had one of the better backup QBs in the league for a few years with Flynn, but here are the backup quarterbacks for other Super Bowl contenders in the NFL.

Seattle - Tarvaris Jackson
San Francisco - Colt McCoy, B.J. Daniels
New England - Ryan Mallet
Denver - Zac Dysert, Brock Osweiler
New Orleans - Luke McCown
Atlanta - Dominique Davis
Houston - Case Keenum, T.J. Yates

Bottom line is none of those teams are winning more than 6 games with any of those QBs, and only Jackson, Yates, McCown and Colt McCoy have even played significant snaps in the NFL.

Sort of my thoughts. People are upset about having an unproven backup, but why does having an unproven backup any worse than a backup that's proven to suck?

[KidA24]

The whole "Packers not having a good enough backup QB" is literally one of the dumbest complaints I've heard about a sports team from its respective fan base.

Without even mentioning that the Packers had one of the better backup QBs in the league for a few years with Flynn, but here are the backup quarterbacks for other Super Bowl contenders in the NFL.

Seattle - Tarvaris Jackson
San Francisco - Colt McCoy, B.J. Daniels
New England - Ryan Mallet
Denver - Zac Dysert, Brock Osweiler
New Orleans - Luke McCown
Atlanta - Dominique Davis
Houston - Case Keenum, T.J. Yates

Bottom line is none of those teams are winning more than 6 games with any of those QBs, and only Jackson, Yates, McCown and Colt McCoy have even played significant snaps in the NFL.

Sort of my thoughts. People are upset about having an unproven backup, but why does having an unproven backup any worse than a backup that's proven to suck?

Exactly. Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady and Steve Young are extreme examples of backup QB's. They are incredibly rare. If the starter goes down for the season, the season is lost. I want someone competent in hopes they can win a game against a bad team and not Rubley the team out of a win.

[paulpressey25]

McGinn and I are on the same wavelength.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/ ... tml?ipad=y

He's at 12-4 with slight reservations on the offense.

[Ayt]

I think McGinn gets hard talking about size.

He made a number of really terrible arguments in that article. He certainly knows how to spin a tale.

[Bucksfans1and2]

McGinn and I are on the same wavelength.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/ ... tml?ipad=y

He's at 12-4 with slight reservations on the offense.

McGinn is a size queen.

The entire extent of his analysis on that piece was listing the weights (or heights, whichever fit his point better) of his players and trying to fit it into his theme of the summer.

He's got nothing to say about Hayward 5'11 195. He inflates Jones' weight by ten pounds from his listed weight on the Packers site and his combine weight. He only sparing glances over that neither Bakhtiari nor Tretter are big lineman.

He then says that the Packers lack of scoring in the offseason should be a cause for concern.

Why? Rodgers played for like 4 drives and we moved the ball extremely easily on all of them. I don't know what McGinn's problem is, but he's gone from being one of the best writers in the business to coming off like a hack.

There are legitimate weaknesses with this team that he could be covering, but instead he feels the need to harp on his size fetish likes it actually means something significant. The reason our team's average weight is so much heavier is because we kept a lot more defensive lineman. We're still going to play 2 DLineman most of the time, so if you take the average weight on a per snap basis, we'd still be one of, if not the, lightest team in the league. We didn't become a better team because we have Dlineman standing on the sideline rather than Tight Ends or Linebackers.

Jones is the same size as Bishop. Datone Jones/Wilson is smaller than Worthy/Wilson. The only place on the starting D that's going to be bigger this year is Perry instead of Walden, but that would have been the same if Perry hadn't gotten hurt last year. Bakhtiari is way smaller than Newhouse at LT. Barclay is way smaller than Bulaga at RT. Lacy is bigger than Starks, and I suppose Finley is bigger, but that's it.

McGinn acting like this team got way bigger is stupid. The average per snap weight is probably going to go down this year and he's beating his chest like his "We need to get tougher" mantra was agreed with by the front office.

[El Duderino]

McGinn and I are on the same wavelength.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/ ... tml?ipad=y

He's at 12-4 with slight reservations on the offense.

If my memory is correct. McGinn has been pretty damn accurate over the years with his before the season predictions. Hope he's right again, but with our schedule, injuries already, and shaky depth on offense especially, a lot will need to go right to win 12 games.

[Bucksfans1and2]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/after-7-years-at-packers-helm-mike-mccarthy-confident-in-his-approach-b9989263z1-222842621.html

Q. In February, you indicated the Packers ranked near the middle of the league in 2012 when it came to playing physical football. What are the chances of this team being more physical this year?

A. I don't recall that at all. Let me tell you something. The physical part of this thing, that's fine. Keep writing about it. Because I think it's great for our team. In all honesty, I think it's (expletive). There wouldn't be a guy on that team if we didn't think he was a physical football player. We want to be as physical as we possibly can. I think we're off to a good start, but it doesn't mean anything until you start playing the real games.

[Ayt]

McGinn and I are on the same wavelength.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/ ... tml?ipad=y

He's at 12-4 with slight reservations on the offense.

McGinn is a size queen.

The entire extent of his analysis on that piece was listing the weights (or heights, whichever fit his point better) of his players and trying to fit it into his theme of the summer.

He's got nothing to say about Hayward 5'11 195. He inflates Jones' weight by ten pounds from his listed weight on the Packers site and his combine weight. He only sparing glances over that neither Bakhtiari nor Tretter are big lineman.

He then says that the Packers lack of scoring in the offseason should be a cause for concern.

Why? Rodgers played for like 4 drives and we moved the ball extremely easily on all of them. I don't know what McGinn's problem is, but he's gone from being one of the best writers in the business to coming off like a hack.

There are legitimate weaknesses with this team that he could be covering, but instead he feels the need to harp on his size fetish likes it actually means something significant. The reason our team's average weight is so much heavier is because we kept a lot more defensive lineman. We're still going to play 2 DLineman most of the time, so if you take the average weight on a per snap basis, we'd still be one of, if not the, lightest team in the league. We didn't become a better team because we have Dlineman standing on the sideline rather than Tight Ends or Linebackers.

Jones is the same size as Bishop. Datone Jones/Wilson is smaller than Worthy/Wilson. The only place on the starting D that's going to be bigger this year is Perry instead of Walden, but that would have been the same if Perry hadn't gotten hurt last year. Bakhtiari is way smaller than Newhouse at LT. Barclay is way smaller than Bulaga at RT. Lacy is bigger than Starks, and I suppose Finley is bigger, but that's it.

McGinn acting like this team got way bigger is stupid. The average per snap weight is probably going to go down this year and he's beating his chest like his "We need to get tougher" mantra was agreed with by the front office.

And if our run D is much better, it won't be because we have added a bunch of extra talent. And if our running game is better, it won't be because Lacy is simply vastly superior as a talent compared to all the other RBs we've had recently. He'll write about being bigger and having a different attitude.

Beyond that, a bunch of moves he mentions clearly had nothing to do with size or toughness. We didn't cut Smiff because he was small. We didn't cut Bishop because he was small. We let didn't let Crabs walk because he was small. We didn't keep Jolly because he was big. And on and on...