2012 NFL Offseason

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 02/28/2012 @ 08:37:34 AM
First things first, Donald Driver will appear on Dancing with the Stars.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 02/28/2012 @ 10:25:37 AM
There's an nFl now?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 02/28/2012 @ 12:14:35 PM
Weird. Sometime around January 15 the NFL ceased to exist for some reason. Then just this morning, I heard about it again for the first time, with Donald Driver's addition to DWTS being the news that brought the NFL back to life. It must be a pretty important moment. I'm wondering if people are really sold on this whole "professional football" thing. I'm not sure I see it catching on.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 02/28/2012 12:15:27 pm

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 02/28/2012 @ 06:41:47 PM
My sister felt the need to text me this info today, so it's kind of a big deal. I might have to actually watch a reality show!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Refactor Mercilessly 02/28/2012 @ 08:30:05 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7626288/nfl-season-start-wednesday-sept-5-due-democratic-national-convention I liked this comment, "Hey here is a thought.. how about we kick the season off on a SUNDAY.. stop putting the nfl on wed.. thurs...fri...sat nights!! Sunday and Monday is NFL - the end!"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 02/29/2012 @ 09:03:48 AM
This will be the 2nd year in a row that the President's speech will interfere with the opening night of football. Last year the president had a speech on the same night as opening night too. Although while I'm not a huge fan of Thursday football, it makes sense to have some form of a premier opening night for what is now America's most watched sport.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 02/29/2012 @ 09:06:50 AM
And BTW, the comments in that article are hillarious. It all turned into a huge political cesspool.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 03/02/2012 @ 10:43:18 AM
So I did a google news search for "Brett Favre" (you know, just to see what's shakin'). The funny thing was, the first 6 articles it returned were all about speculation about Peyton Manning going to the Jets. I found that interesting.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 03/02/2012 @ 02:55:38 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7638603/new-orleans-saints-defense-had-bounty-program-nfl-says This investigation started in large part thanks to a Saints player basically coming out and saying "We were paid to take out Brett Favre's ankle" following the NFC Championship game. Rot in hell, fuckers.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 03/02/2012 @ 02:59:17 PM
Favre was hurt during the game, wasn't he? I remember him limping around at one point with the Vikings, and I can't remember if it was that game or not. I also remember Favre getting jacked repeatedly like never before during that game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 03/02/2012 3:00:27 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 03/02/2012 @ 03:10:13 PM
I don't remember if the initial injury was in the game or not, but their mission to obliterate Favre at all costs was obvious. The most obvious of the game was a completely unnecessary take down on an interception, which should have overturned it, if I remember correctly. Favre's inability to scramble even a few yards because of their targeting his ankle also led to the INT that sealed the game going into overtime.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 03/02/2012 3:11:37 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/02/2012 @ 03:13:32 PM
So any conspiracy theories about it are no longer theories, but rather actual conspiracies. For the record, I was rooting for the vikings in that game. Weird, nutcan won't let me type that. It automatically crossed it out. Weird.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 03/02/2012 3:18:09 pm

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 03/02/2012 @ 03:17:08 PM
They should take away draft picks. If the Patriots lost a draft pick for spygate, which most people believed wouldn't have given them anything insightful anyway, a coordinated effort by a team to inflict injury on opposing players should be dealt with holistically, not simply by fining players.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 03/05/2012 @ 09:44:32 AM
@brettfavre4 joins twitter. Apparently this is news. http://tracking.si.com/2012/03/02/brett-favre-joins-twitter/		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 03/05/2012 @ 06:10:39 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:44:32 AM @brettfavre4 joins twitter. Apparently this is news. / Like 3 days ago, now not so much.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/06/2012 @ 06:16:47 PM
Are the Vikings going to sign Manning now? Or will they wait until he plays for a different team for a year?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 03/09/2012 @ 04:32:45 PM
I wouldn't mind it. I know everyone would be all "OH THERE THEY GO AGAIN!" "RETREAD!" etc, but this would be different. They have a guy they hope is the long term solution, this would just sit him behind a future hall of famer for a couple seasons, which some people would claim is exactly what you're supposed to do with young quarterbacks. There's "veterans" and then there's Peyton Manning. I can't think of a better person to learn from and try to emulate. Edit: 3 of the teams he's being most heavily pursued by are the Broncos, Chiefs, and Cardinals. The Broncos fans already thing they have their savior, and the other two teams have made some relatively big moves recently to get guys a few seasons into their careers whom Peyton would be replacing, and are still playing the "It's not a commentary on our faith in Keven Kolb, you just can't pass up Peyton Manning" card. If they can do that with a straight face the Vikings can certainly make that claim about 2nd year high-middle pick Ponder.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 03/09/2012 4:43:30 pm

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 03/09/2012 @ 06:54:19 PM
I wouldn't criticize the move, if it happened. It made sense for when they got Favre, and it would seem to make sense with Manning. The only difference with Manning is that his injury risk isn't necessarily a risk, more so that they are currently real and present. Edit: I suppose Favre had a real legitimate injury with his bicep. So maybe Manning is no more risky. Either way, it would seem like a no brainer for any team that doesn't already have an established, pro-bowl QB.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 03/09/2012 6:56:38 pm

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 03/12/2012 @ 12:16:53 AM
Ignoring the part where Peyton Manning probably has no desire whatsoever to sign with the Vikings, I'm not sure that it would be a good idea from the Vikings perspective anyway. The Vikings have some good talent, but they are, most likely, still a rebuilding year or two away from being a good/competitive team. This isn't like the Favre situation where we were a QB away from being contenders. I don't think it would be best to spend money on a guy who will probably be winding down as the Vikings get good again. As for Ponder, from what I've heard the Vikings are still high on him and think that the game isn't too much for him at this point. That being the case, I think that he would benefit more from playing through the rebuild, rather than learning under Manning. Plus, the sooner we find out whether Ponder is anything, the better.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 03/12/2012 @ 12:18:46 AM
That being said, though. It would still be cool if Manning played for the Vikings and I could probably talk myself into it being a good move in order to just enjoy the show.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 03/12/2012 @ 03:41:30 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure if it would be a "good" move, but I don't think it would be a "bad" move either (beyond the "can he even play" risk that any team will have to deal with). It certainly wouldn't be a "there they go again, never developing anyone" move, unless you want to make the case the Packers never did anything to "develop" Rodgers.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 03/12/2012 3:43:41 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/13/2012 @ 12:17:55 PM
If Manning goes to Denver, maybe TebowMania would come to Minnesota! Wouldn't that be exciting.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 03/13/2012 12:18:06 pm

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 03/13/2012 @ 02:41:35 PM
No, it would not. (Happen, or be exciting)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 03/13/2012 @ 07:43:15 PM
I don't know, it was pretty exciting when he was there last year! *tebowing emoticon!*		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/13/2012 @ 09:10:03 PM
I was rooting for the Vikings in the game you speak of.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 03/19/2012 @ 11:18:35 AM
Looks like #tebow might be #tebowing somewhere else next year. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7709195/2012-nfl-free-agency-barring-snag-peyton-manning-picks-denver-broncos-sources-say		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 03/19/2012 11:19:16 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/19/2012 @ 11:27:20 AM
I wonder how many titles Peyton is going to guarantee now that he is taking his talents to Denver.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - How do you use these things? 03/19/2012 @ 06:50:55 PM
Poor Tebow, the guy only performs miracles and he gets the boot from Evil Elway. In other news, I am going to be forced to watch DWTS for the first time ever so that I can see DD dance! Everyone vote for him please!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/20/2012 @ 10:07:11 AM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1111942-tim-tebow-trade-rumors-packers-patriots-eagles-and-teams-qb-could-land-with So McCarthy says some nice, if not somewhat accurate, things about Tebow two years ago, and now people are saying that the Packers are a "serious contender" for Tebow. I suppose Packer fans need a reason to hate Ted Thompson, so any Tebow fans out there that are also Packer fans will call Thompson to task for not going after him. I saw someone tweeted a Packers writer today saying "can't see the Broncos giving the Packers more than a 5th round pick to take Tebow", to which the Packer writer resonded "Ted would demand a 4th and Von Miller". There are probably a few teams that would or should take a chance on Tebow. But they are teams that have to be willing to completely change their playbook to fit the player. Although, if Tebow were a Packers QB, maybe a few years in the Packers renowned QB school would turn him into an actual NFL quarterback someday.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/20/2012 @ 01:56:39 PM
all day, GB's name keeps coming up as a possible candidate for a Tebow trade. sources close to Thompson say that a trade would be no more than a late round draft pick. There are a couple of reasons why getting Tebow wouldn't be the worst thing in the world (there are probably more reasons why it would be the worst). One, green bay is probably not too susceptible to the media circus that most places would have to absorb. This would be good for the Packers, but maybe even better for Tebow. Being able to be out of the spotlight might be attractive to him. Green Bay is so much in the middle of nowhere with nothing around it. The other thing is that if he was willing to not be a quarterback, Mike McCarthy would be a pretty good guy to be able to figure out an effective use for him. He could be some sort of hybrid running back/TE type player. Since the NFL game is getting away from the run more and more these days, maybe this would be the start of the next big thing. I mean, if getting Tebow cost you a 5th or 6th round draft pick, I could imagine that the chances of that draft pick actually amounting to anything would be pretty low, so the risk wouldn't be that low. One big reason why I certainly wouldn't want Tebow as the packers backup QB comes from something Jim Rome tweeted today. You want your backup to be able to come in if your starting QB goes down. Hopefully, that backup can essentially run the same offense your starter ran (it worked that way with Rodgers/Favre and with Rodgers/Flynn). Unless the Packers QB school can completely transform Tebow, he does not seem capable of stepping in and running any kind of offense similar to what the packers already run. All of this is ultimately me trying to justify something that I probably don't want to happen anyway. I'm not advocating anything.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/20/2012 @ 02:06:20 PM
But more importantly why the Packers maybe shouldn't trade for Tebow: He can't rush the passer, he can't cover wide receivers, he doesn't snap the ball or block defensive linemen. The Packers have some pretty big needs right now at other positions. And if Rodgers would go down with injury, the Packers are probably screwed with or with* Tebow. *edit: freudian slip; with or without		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 03/21/2012 10:00:16 am

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 03/21/2012 @ 12:28:19 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7718136/sean-payton-new-orleans-saints-banned-one-year-bounties hoooo......lyyyyyyyy..........crap		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 03/21/2012 @ 12:44:19 PM
I think the NFL needed to do something meaningful, haven't decided yet if this was too much or not.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/21/2012 @ 12:48:23 PM
Agreed. With the emphasis on player safety being front and center in recent years, they clearly decided that they needed to make an example out of the Saints. I came on here to post a link about a statue of Bob Uecker going up at Miller Park, but when I saw the news about the Saints, I was in too much shock. GM, head coach, assistant head coach all gone for part or all of the season, former DC suspended indefinitely. Since there's no precedence for something like this, how do you even begin to decide if it was too much or not. I think they felt that since it was going on for 3 years, and apparently the NFL had caught wind of it and the Saints were aware that the NFL knew about it, that the correct call was to lay the hammer directly on those that run the team operations. A full year is unreal, though. Just shocking. In other, less shocking news, Tebow is going to the Jets. I wonder if the media will pay much attention to him all the way out there.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 4 times, last at 03/21/2012 1:12:02 pm

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 03/21/2012 @ 01:01:42 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/39804/vikings-fans-nothing-will-ever-be-enough In the end, I'm not sure if there were a set of penalties -- short of reversing the outcome of the game -- that could have distilled your (Viking fans) anger in this case. If it makes you feel any better, the bounty program led to the steepest discipline in NFL history. That will have to do.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 03/21/2012 1:02:09 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/21/2012 @ 01:14:10 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Sean Payton got fired by the Saints and the Saints hired a new coach. How are you going to have someone agree to just coach for one year and then step down after your ex-convicted coach comes back to retake the reins.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 03/21/2012 @ 06:08:27 PM
Had they not injured Favre the Vikings would have won that game, turnovers and all. I want their Lombardi Trophy, not a one year suspension that means fuck-all to a rebuilding Vikings, and actually takes a foe for our rivals off the table. (Not to mention fucks the Rams almost as much, despite the fact that they didn't do anything wrong, other than maybe have a due diligence flap.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/21/2012 @ 08:43:28 PM
I'm not sure how much of all that you were serious about, but I'm not really sure what other punishment they could have done. The Vikings certainly weren't their only targets, and you start getting into a huge issue of what does vacating wins actually do. In fact, that almost would seem like a nothing punishment. For what it's worth, and to Viking fans it probably understandably isn't worth much, this is the harshest penalty in the history of the NFL, and probably the history of professional sports*. The Rams certainly are getting a raw deal because like you said, they are basically innocent pawns in all this. What the punishments do in fact do is a couple things. One it sends a loud message to all teams to never try anything like this again. Two, it rocks the franchise to the core that practiced one of the worst examples of sportsmanship in modern NFL history. The practice was prolonged, and blatantly denied about to the league. As much as it hurts a team like the Vikings, I think the Kevin Seifert article I quotes above says it best: nothing will ever be enough. *with a few notable exceptions, the 1919 Black Sox scandal being one that comes to mind.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 03/21/2012 8:45:01 pm

	Sarah - 4671 Posts 03/21/2012 @ 08:43:50 PM
Now the jets have two bad qbs. I kid. I love Tebow, but wow this is going to be crazy, media wise.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 03/21/2012 @ 09:32:46 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1114399-jeremy-shockey-snitch-allegations-bring-out-the-worst-in-modern-society The video about 1/3 of the way down this article makes me sick. In light of the news of the bounty scandal, it is painfully obvious that the Saints were playing with the intent to injure. About 2:20 into the video is a clip of a guy lunging directly at Favre's ankle. In the last 5 or so years of NFL football, I've never seen a QB get hit so violently so frequently. If I were a Viking fan (and I'm a Favre fan, so I do feel like I have a dog in this fight), I would want every single one of these pricks suspended, fined, publicly displayed, and made an example of; if not other penalties. It just made me want to puke. #contractthesaints		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 03/21/2012 @ 09:36:52 PM
Well, "sorry" doesn't put the Triscuit crackers in my stomach....		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 03/21/2012 @ 11:12:40 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 09:32:46 PM http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1114399-jeremy-shockey-snitch-allegations-bring-out-the-worst-in-modern-society The video about 1/3 of the way down this article makes me sick. In light of the news of the bounty scandal, it is painfully obvious that the Saints were playing with the intent to injure. About 2:20 into the video is a clip of a guy lunging directly at Favre's ankle. In the last 5 or so years of NFL football, I've never seen a QB get hit so violently so frequently. If I were a Viking fan (and I'm a Favre fan, so I do feel like I have a dog in this fight), I would want every single one of these pricks suspended, fined, publicly displayed, and made an example of; if not other penalties. It just made me want to puke. #contractthesaints Shortly after the punishments were announced, the Vikings released NT - Remi Ayodele, a former Saints player (he was involved in a high/low hit on Favre during the championship game). Now, Ayodele sucked last year, and the Vikings already announced that they were converting Letroy Guion to nose tackle next year, so he was probably going to be released anyway. That said, I'm sure the prospect of future punishment for the players involved made this decision even easier for the Vikings.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/22/2012 @ 11:03:31 AM
Since the NFL is cracking down hard on players and teams that are intentionally trying to injure opposing players, should players refrain from voting for which player should be on the Madden cover? Other forms of this question/joke you can use for free: Does voting for Tim Tebow* to be on the Madden cover violate the NFL's no-bounty program? *substitute Tim Tebow for any player you don't like or whatever.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 03/22/2012 11:17:59 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/22/2012 @ 11:22:45 AM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:36:52 PM Well, "sorry" doesn't put the Triscuit crackers in my stomach.... neither does a lifetime prison sentence or execution bring someone's son back to life.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 03/22/2012 @ 05:25:11 PM
I voted for Tebow. It's clearly a gotsta-go situation.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/23/2012 @ 01:09:36 PM
Packers sign Jeff Saturday. Finally, Woodson can relate to a new teammate.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 03/23/2012 1:35:12 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/23/2012 @ 01:35:59 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 01:09:36 PM Packers sign Jeff Saturday. Finally, Woodson can relate to a new teammate. Apparently it's a two year deal, according to sources close to sources close to the situation.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 03/23/2012 1:36:19 pm

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 03/23/2012 @ 02:04:45 PM
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/39950/john-sullivan-saints-were-despicable Two things about why I'm a credible opinion: 1) I'm defending the Vikings 2) I'm prosecuting a former packer (Darren Sharper) The more I read about this, the more I get my blood boiling. This is from Vikings Center John Sullivan: "I really think if you go back and look at that game, anybody who took a shot at Brett illegally and you can see with the intention of trying to injury him [should be banned]," Sullivan said. "And the big two that come to mind are Sharper and Bobby McCray. They've got to do something to those guys, too, whether it's no Hall of Fame [or] you're not allowed to be associated with the NFL anymore. I have a hard time talking about it. It just disgusts me that you would go out there and try to hurt somebody and take away their livelihood. It' s just gross.". My emotional response is to agree with him. And frankly, I'll let my emtional response be my response for now. It's sickening. If a player has a documented, rewarded, and team sanctioned goal to inflicted game ending injury to an opposing player (which could obviously lead to all sorts of career ending injuries), why shouldn't the punishment fit the crime? Ban 'em! Kick 'em out. Reclaim the integrity of the game.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 2 times, last at 03/23/2012 2:08:31 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/27/2012 @ 11:18:22 AM
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/40075/packers-ted-thompsons-imperfect-storm Looks like someone gave TT a case of Red Bull! The Packers got 4 comp draft picks for the 2012 draft, bringing their total draft picks up to 12. He also signed a free agent, and there are reports that 3 others might be waiting in the wings. It's like the game command and conquer (or age of empires), where you can build up your armies slowly and be satisfied just having a big army, and you can protect and dominate the resource collections, and you may have to fend off an occasional assault, but then when your army is big enough, or you just get bored of simply having an army, you unleash fury and totally annihilate your opponent in a massive blood bath of carnage and destruction. Ok, so I got a little over-excited. But it does seem that Thompson is being a little more bold in his moves this year. It probably has a lot to do with how he views the talent level of this year's draft. The Packers needed a center, and they need defensive line help. If he isn't confident that he can get that from the draft, the free agent deals look more attractive. And for what it's worth, this doesn't necessarily seem like a break from his philosophy. If he felt like he could get what he thinks he needs from the draft, he would. I don't think he avoids free agents simply for the sake of avoiding free agents.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 03/27/2012 11:20:28 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 03/27/2012 @ 12:59:09 PM
Problem is they need starters right now because previous drafts haven't developed enough. This year's draft isn't going to fix that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/27/2012 @ 01:12:46 PM
I don't know if it's entirely accurate to simply say that previous drafts haven't developed, just that previous drafts at certain positions haven't developed. Clearly they have holes at defensive line, and most of the linemen they've drafted haven't panned out, or haven't developed yet. And maybe they won't ever develop. The point is, I think his philosophy (which has proven to be a pretty good one) is to draft first, and use Free Agency on an "as needed" basis, and in some ways as a last resort. Because when it comes to value, unrestricted free agents are generally much more expensive than other options. TT has built a pretty successful team, and given his track record, I'm willing to trust that he can address the defensive problems that seemed to plague them last season.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 03/27/2012 1:13:10 pm

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 03/28/2012 @ 10:20:30 AM
So the NFL changed the instant replay rule so that turnover plays will warrant an automatic review the same as scoring plays. While this is a step in the right direction, the same annoying nuance that plagues the "almost-scoring plays" scenarios is that there is no automatic review for "almost turnover plays". So if a player makes an INT but the ref thinks it hits the ground and rules it incomplete, the defending team must burn a challenge. But, if the same play results in the ref ruling it an INT, the offense gets a free challenge.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 03/28/2012 @ 01:00:13 PM
that's dumb		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 03/28/2012 @ 01:08:45 PM
They are also pushing to have an official up in the booth be the one to actually review the play and make the deicision. This at least would probably save time, and would remove the (probably unlikely) scenario that the ref who made the call is biased against his own call despite what he sees. I still think they would be better off with the college rule, where everything is reviewed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so! 03/29/2012 @ 10:32:09 PM
Scott Wrote - 03/22/2012 @ 11:03:31 AM Since the NFL is cracking down hard on players and teams that are intentionally trying to injure opposing players, should players refrain from voting for which player should be on the Madden cover? Other forms of this question/joke you can use for free: Does voting for Tim Tebow* to be on the Madden cover violate the NFL's no-bounty program? *substitute Tim Tebow for any player you don't like or whatever. Don't forget to vote for not Rodgers		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/04/2012 @ 09:23:08 AM
http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcnorth/post/_/id/40335/new-unis-packers-reject-all-changes I don't know if anyone here reads the NFC north blog on ESPN, but if you do, you may have seen NutCan get some representation today. The Packers were among a handful of NFL teams to reject the new trappings of the uniform change. Your responses were mostly supportive, from what I could see. Via Twitter, @matsonscotty wrote: "packers unis didn't change at all. Just as it should be." Many of you agreed. Look for me when truely expert analysis is needed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 04/04/2012 @ 09:10:52 PM
The Packers have flat out changed thier unis, or tweaked more than most teams just did, well over 30 times.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 04/04/2012 @ 09:19:02 PM
The Packers have had essentially the same design to their uniforms since 1959. And accept for some minor changes (like the number of stripes on the arm from 5 to three) , it has basically gone unchanged. I stand by my authoritative comment.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this at 04/04/2012 9:19:25 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/04/2012 @ 09:36:27 PM
In 61 they added the G to the helmet, in 65 they changed the stripes on the socks, in 75 the stripes in the pants changed, in 1980 they changed the facemask color, in 81 they changed the socks, in 84 they changed just about everything, in 88 they took the number off the pants, in 89 they changed the pants stripe, in 92 they changed the socks, in 97 the stripes on the jersey changed, in 2001 they changed the helmet color. (And that's not even counting changes to shoes.) So no, there has been no "drastic" uniform switch since 59, though you probably could count 84, but there's still 11 non-mandated changes there that are on par with, if not more than, most teams just "changed" theirs. (Many changes Nike made are modernizing the fabric.) The Packers have changed something actually noticeable about every 5.5 seasons since 59. It's not a big deal, but let's not get all revisionist history on how timeless and untouchable the Packer's uniform has been.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 04/04/2012 9:37:03 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/04/2012 @ 09:47:10 PM
Their uniforms are essentially been the same for over 50 years. There's nothing untrue about that statement. And to your point about the Packers making non-mandating changes, however unnoticeable they pretty much all have been (I guess I forgot about the "metallic, "pearlized" shade of gold" they added to their helmets in 2001--crazy me), if anything, it shows that they change on their own watch, not when the fads show up.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 04/04/2012 9:52:22 pm

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 04/04/2012 @ 09:49:07 PM
Sure, but then "essentially the same" applies to everyone but the Seahawks, and would have applied if the Packers accepted these as their 12th tweak in 50ish years.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 04/04/2012 9:51:18 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/04/2012 @ 09:53:42 PM
Who said anything about the Packers being the only team to have a longstanding uniform design anyway?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 04/04/2012 @ 09:56:37 PM
All you Packer fans implied it with your self righteous reaction to the news that the Packers passed on Nike's changes. Though I wouldn't say it was about being the "only team" so much as a "we would never change OUR uniforms one bit" reaction.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 04/04/2012 9:58:01 pm

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 04/04/2012 @ 09:59:54 PM
In the time I've been following the NFL (and this could apply as far back as 1959), here are teams that have drastically changed their uniforms. Patriots, Broncos, Bills, Vikings, Jets, Giants, Jaguars, Seahawks, Cowboys, Buccaneers, Eagles, Rams. Some have had drastic uniform redesigns, some have even changed their logo altogether. I'll take a slightly different colored facemask and an extra strip on their socks as one of your examples of the Packers constantly changing uniforms and say bunk. Bunk I say!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 04/04/2012 10:01:01 pm

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 04/04/2012 @ 10:04:32 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:56:37 PM Though I wouldn't say it was about being the "only team" so much as a "we would never change OUR uniforms one bit" reaction. This is probably a fair point. I will say though, while the Packers have made periodic tweaks that when not pointed out to the general public don't hardly get noticed unless you are one of those who likes to point out minute details, the fact that the NFL had a huge unveiling of new uniforms where most of the teams changed something about their uniforms, it did seem fitting that the Packers didn't succumb to the peer pressure. Nobody tells the Packers when to change.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 04/04/2012 10:05:56 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/04/2012 @ 10:05:10 PM
Well, socks are like a fifth of the uniform, but that was never really the point. The "of course the Packers didn't change anything, that's why we're better than everyone" reaction is nonsense. The Packers routinely modernize the gist of their look, just like every other team does from time to time, even when they aren't switching uniforms entirely either.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 04/04/2012 10:05:29 pm

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 04/04/2012 @ 10:07:25 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:04:32 PM Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 09:56:37 PM Though I wouldn't say it was about being the "only team" so much as a "we would never change OUR uniforms one bit" reaction. This is probably a fair point. I will say though, while the Packers have made periodic tweaks that when not pointed out to the general public don't hardly get noticed unless you are one of those who likes to point out minute details, the fact that the NFL had a huge unveiling of new uniforms where most of the teams changed something about their uniforms, it did seem fitting that the Packers didn't succumb to the peer pressure. Nobody tells the Packers when to change. Virtually every change I've seen thus far, with the exception of the Seahawks, you have to see the unis side by side to even notice. The fact that the Packers took a rare pass on tweaking their look this time counts for jack. They do it all the time, same as everyone. Dismount the high horse.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 2 times, last at 04/04/2012 10:08:33 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/04/2012 @ 10:07:26 PM
Whatever, I got on ESPN! And it counts for "nobody puts baby in a corner"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 04/04/2012 10:09:27 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/04/2012 @ 10:16:18 PM
The Packers weren't even the only team that rejected the changes. But I'd say some of the changes brought about by the new jerseys are fairly significant. The two-tone collar is hideous. The sweatbox around the abs might not be obvious on a model, but on the field, that material has been known to take on a different color when it gets wet. And, the new jerseys are like skin tight. Overall, I'm not a fan.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 04/04/2012 10:16:59 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/04/2012 @ 10:21:05 PM
I was never on a high horse (if I am, it's probably because you picked me up and put me there, and then yelled at me for being on a horse). I'm very familiar with the Packers uniform changes over the years, even before looking it up in detail tonight. I was simply pleasantly surprised and pleased that at a time when nearly every team changed their uniform, the Packers took a pass. There's no high horse, just team pride.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this 3 times, last at 04/04/2012 10:26:43 pm

	Jeremy - Always thinking of, but never about, the children. 04/04/2012 @ 10:26:13 PM
Over 10 years with no change! (Also, when did we decide change was automatically a bad thing, and that the lack of it was something worthy of pride?*) *Although, I do remember Jon taking pride in wearing the same pair of busted ass sandals for about 3 years too long. Also, maybe "almost every team" accepted Nike's changes because they actually were functional improvements, which would make you an old fuddy duddy clinging to his land line phone to turn them down just for the sake of fearing change.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 04/04/2012 10:32:19 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/04/2012 @ 10:31:35 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:26:13 PM Over 10 years with no change! (Also, when did we decide change was automatically a bad thing, and that the lack of it was something worthy of pride?) what's the 10 year thing? And change isn't bad, necessarily. But I do indeed take pride that the Packers have been pretty much the same for a long time. I suffered through the Brewers going through like 4 drastic revisions where even the logo changed like 3 or 4 times over a 10 year period before they finally landed on their current logo which I think is a pretty good logo. And the ball and glove was certainly cool, and I like that they still use it, but there's something to be said about coming up with a good design that stands the test of time for 50 years. *Edit: So designing a look and a logo that is still relevant and revered 50 years later isn't something to be proud of? If you had to fix it, it must have meant that it was broken.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 3 times, last at 04/04/2012 10:37:00 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/04/2012 @ 10:38:29 PM
Ok, I got the 10 year thing (like a mocking of a company bragging about it)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 04/04/2012 @ 10:40:41 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 10:26:13 PM Also, maybe "almost every team" accepted Nike's changes because they actually were functional improvements, which would make you an old fuddy duddy clinging to his land line phone to turn them down just for the sake of fearing change. Well, the new uniform material is supposedly better suited for staying cool even when wet. The Packers are trying to get approval for down-filled uniforms so they can win a playoff game at home, not a uniform that keeps them cold AND wet!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 04/04/2012 @ 10:42:20 PM
In conclusion, I've been quoted as an authoritative source by ESPN. What does the MBL have planned to top that feat?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/04/2012 @ 10:45:21 PM
He's still cited as a source on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirby_Puckett#cite_note-3		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 04/05/2012 @ 02:58:24 AM
I also got a question answered by Tom Kelly in an AOL chat back in 1997.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/05/2012 @ 07:39:46 AM
Me and my dog were talked about by name by Bob Uecker during a broadcast once, during a conversation that lasted maybe 3 minutes.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/05/2012 @ 01:06:23 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7778005/gregg-williams-told-new-orleans-saints-hurt-san-francisco-49ers-speech If Gregg Williams thought about what it would be like when he gets his coaching job back, he can probably put that dream to bed forever. I'm not even sure this goes outside the realm of criminal activity. To Malcom Jenkins I would ask, "if you had evidence of a henious act that violated every ethical code of conduct you could imagine, but you came about that evidence on accident, should that just be swept under the rug and pretended like it never happened?" Whistleblowers should be lauded, not outed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 3 times, last at 04/05/2012 1:12:05 pm

	Jon - 1 bajillion posts 04/06/2012 @ 01:00:26 AM
Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:58:24 AM I also got a question answered by Tom Kelly in an AOL chat back in 1997. Bonus points too, because Tom Kelly said "very good question"		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/06/2012 @ 07:39:17 AM
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/feature/madden2013cover Go Ray Rice!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/19/2012 @ 08:10:15 AM
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/steelers/steelers-new-classic-uniforms-from-1934-631906/ I'm a fan of throwbacks, but these ones are interesting. Not only are the jerseys not the most eye-appealing, but their supposedly from a season in which the Steelers (or Pirates, as they were called) went 2-10. Maybe this isn't universal, but the Brewers and Packers have throwbacks that relate to some sort of successful past.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 04/20/2012 @ 11:49:59 AM
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/feature/madden2013cover Success!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 04/23/2012 @ 12:59:24 PM
Packers cut Chad Clifton. He played in Green Bay for 12 seasons. Bill Clinton was still president when he started playing. On a related note, the color of the carpeting I put in my basement was called "Clifton". However, it is not the giant floor mosaic of the Packers left tackle that I was expecting.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 04/23/2012 @ 01:27:23 PM
I assume the Vikings have dispatched a helicopter. Hopefully, for the Packer's sake, he passed along his "how to blatantly hold on every play and only get called for it 3 times a season" skills to his understudy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 04/23/2012 1:33:18 pm

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 04/23/2012 @ 01:43:36 PM
You can't get away with that as a Viking. It's in the rule book. Or, it happens just as often as it happens to every team, with some choosing to ignore/only focus on certain aspect of it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 01:56:27 PM
According to the nutcan penalty tracker, it was 22 to 8 on accepted penalties. The Packers had the fewest in the league. (Which, of course, just means they're the best, not that they're potentially getting away with this particular infraction that happens on essentially every play more often.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 02:04:12 PM
Well seeing that you use the "just because the packers get called more" for some particular penalty debate "doesn't mean they aren't also committing even more and get away with even more" I'll let it slide this time.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 02:15:23 PM
I don't know what that means. I'm not claiming some vast conspiracy, but the implication that this is simply confirmation bias at work isn't true either. The Packers were flagged for 1.3% of accepted holding penalties last season, the fewest by a wide margin.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 02:26:37 PM
I was saying that the Packers get charged on this site often with getting away with lots of penalties. Then when I point out that the game in question yields something like 12 penalties for the Packers and 4 for their opponents, the argument is traditionally returned as "that doesn't mean they aren't getting away with even more penalties". I'll let it slide that when the opposite is true that argument is discarded and replaced with "well, I'm just pointing out that: Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:15:23 PM The Packers were flagged for 1.3% of accepted holding penalties last season, the fewest by a wide margin. " So basically, no matter what the scenario, the Packers are always getting away with more penalties than everyone. *also, (and this isn't part of the debate), what does "flagged for 1.3% of accepted holding penalties" actually mean? Is it that only 1.3% of their accepted penalties were for holding? Or out of all the holding penalties in the entire league, the packers accounted for 1.3%? And where are getting that number from?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 4 times, last at 04/23/2012 2:30:20 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 02:34:11 PM
I think I said, in the context of Woodson, that were the statement "he's flagged all the time" true (and it's not ) that doesn't really impact the statement "Charles Woodson gets away with more crap than anyone." That's not only true, but not even all that unlikely. You would expect a hypothetical player that does something illegal on every play to be among the leaders in getting called for it. Of the 547 holding penalties that were actually accepted, the Packers were 8 of them. Numbers from the penalty tracker I gave up on, but might pick up again next season.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 04/23/2012 2:37:06 pm

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 04/23/2012 @ 02:34:49 PM
The Packers did, afterall, committ the 2nd most penalties in the NFL last year.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Robots don't say 'ye' 04/23/2012 @ 02:40:11 PM
Do you have a source on that? Cause if that's even close to true, I have some work to do. (Unless they committed like 70 penalties in the playoffs.)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 04/23/2012 @ 02:41:17 PM
http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/totalPenalties/position/defense Oh, just realized that's just on defense. http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/totalPenalties offensive penalties they were one of the fewest. But they also had one of the best offenses, so both of those stats seem to make sense (bad defense = lots of penalties, good offense = few penalties)		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 04/23/2012 2:43:03 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 02:44:28 PM
Maybe Clifton actually DID do a better a job at not holding defenders than everyone else. Maybe as a fan of a bitter Packer Rival you focused a disproportionate amount of attention on the Packers offensive line and subconsciously looked specifically for holding calls, and then assumed that since the number of holding calls the Packers got called for was lower than your (clearely unbiased) eyes seemed to account for, then obviously they are simply getting away with it more. Maybe when you have 32 teams, someone has to be the best and someone has to be the worst. Like said, the Packers had one of the highest penalty totals in the league last year (on defense), so if they weren't "getting away" with holding calls, they were just as likely getting shafted in other areas where other teams weren't getting called for the same thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 02:44:51 PM
I think that means they were the beneficiary of the second most. (and is only counting accepted penalties.) http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/totalPenalties/order/false		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 02:46:51 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:44:51 PM I think that means they were the beneficiary of the second most. (and is only counting accepted penalties.) http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/totalPenalties/order/false Oh, the offensive stats for penalties isn't how many they committed, but how many they had committed against them? That makes sense, but doesn't help us figure out how many they actually committed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 04/23/2012 @ 02:49:47 PM
Apparently the NFL doesn't want anyone to know about penalties, seeing that it is nearly impossible to find statisticts on that sort of thing.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 04/23/2012 @ 02:50:03 PM
Yeah, those aren't defensive penalties. The Packers were the least penalized team, and the second biggest beneficiary of penalties on their opponents. Once I get the penalty tracker good enough for people to look at maybe I'll add something where we can sort the stats like that. Of course, that assumes I'll ever do anything with it. Once I proved I could do it I sort of lost motivation to actually do it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 02:51:44 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 02:49:47 PM Apparently the NFL doesn't want anyone to know about penalties, seeing that it is nearly impossible to find statisticts on that sort of thing. Sure is, that's why I wanted to make the site. There might not be a Packer-Penalty conspiracy, but there certainly is one to keep anyone from being able to see if there is. There couldn't be less info on penalties on the internet if they actively tried.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 04/23/2012 2:54:32 pm

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 04/23/2012 @ 02:56:12 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:50:03 PM Yeah, those aren't defensive penalties. The Packers were the least penalized team, and the second biggest beneficiary of penalties on their opponents. They were also 15-1 last year, so chicken or egg I guess. Did they committ few penalties because they were a pretty good and disciplined team and ended up winning 15 games, or did they win 15 games because they got away with so many penalties that Rodgers 122 passer rating was because Clifton et all just lassoed everyone on every play. Besides, if that is true, that means that the Packers offense had the fewest penalties called on their opponents defense, so that's something there. Which means that the defenses that the Packers face are getting away with a lot of penalties then. So I then added up the Packers "received" penalties and came up with 198. It took me one random team (the raiders) to find a team with more (283). I so I highly doubt that the Packers were the 2nd biggest benficiary of penalties. Here comes excel for some proof.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 04/23/2012 2:59:45 pm

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 04/23/2012 @ 03:04:35 PM
There were 21 teams in 2011 that were the benficiary of penalties more than the Packers. So in other words, the Packers were in the bottom third of having teams get called for penalties against them. That's no where close to 2nd.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 04/23/2012 @ 03:10:18 PM
No, it means they weren't penalized themselves while also being on the beneficiary end of the 2nd MOST calls. (not fewest) They got the best of both sides. Also, those are far from the only options. Part of it might be they don't need to. Part of it might be they're better at getting away with it, or drawing them. But that doesn't leave the difference up to just luck/conspiracy either. Maybe, just like in every other sport, the officials subconsciously "stay out of the way" of big stars/stories, while giving them the benefit of the doubt on a plus-call more often then on average. Maybe the Packers really have gotten better at not holding over Rodger's tenure, but he went from getting sacked every other play, to getting all day to "wow" everyone, with minor personal moves along the way. I wouldn't be surprised to see penalties like holding trail off as the "legend of Rodgers" grew, and you need not posit a league-wide conspiracy for that. Human nature accounts for it just fine. Also, I made that comment specifically to tease about this conversation, so let's not go round and round again. I know there's no conspiracy. I know that I notice when the Packers get away with it, and dismiss when the Vikings do.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 04/23/2012 3:12:06 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 03:11:15 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:04:35 PM There were 21 teams in 2011 that were the benficiary of penalties more than the Packers. So in other words, the Packers were in the bottom third of having teams get called for penalties against them. That's no where close to 2nd. Where are you seeing this now? I'm looking at the link you posted. (As well as my own numbers.) http://espn.go.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/downs/sort/totalPenalties/position/defense/order/false		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - You're going to have to call your hardware guy. It's not a software issue. 04/23/2012 @ 03:13:45 PM
I took the offensive penalties and defensive penalties and added them up in excel. I'm assuming each set of "penalty" stats accounts for penalties the opponent commits against you on offense and on defense. Am I reading that wrong? Either way, I'm going game by game from last year, and seeing as how the Packers blew out a number of teams and won 15 games, it makes sense that the penalty totals would be low.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 04/23/2012 @ 03:14:33 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:10:18 PM Also, I made that comment specifically to tease about this conversation, so let's not go round and round again. I have no will power.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 1.21 Gigawatts!?!? 04/23/2012 @ 03:17:35 PM
Heh. Me either, apparently. I'm 99% sure: Offensive = Packer Penalties (both sides of ball) Defensive = Opponent Penalties (both sides of ball) The numbers, and order, match mine very closely, but mine lists called penalties, whereas it looks like this one lists standing (not declined/superseded) ones.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 03:20:53 PM
Oh, ok, that makes sense now, and it now matches the "average" penalties I had added up for the packers and their opponents (through 10 games before I gave up, Packers had 4.888 penalties per game ~ 78 total; for their opponents they had 6.7777 ~ 122 for the year). But still, 15 wins you would think might yield such results.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 04/23/2012 3:21:21 pm

	Jeremy - No one's gay for Moleman 04/23/2012 @ 03:24:11 PM
Yeah, but do you win because you aren't penalized, or not penalized because you're winning. (I suspect it's some of both.) It would be interesting to see if we can come up with some kind of Bill James type correlations. I sent you a facebook message.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 04/23/2012 @ 03:25:19 PM
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 04/23/2012 3:26:08 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 03:28:06 PM
The defensive PI disparity is easily explained away: the Packers defense wasn't good enough to committ that penalty last season. Some of the disparities are interesting. The neutral zone infraction is not one I would have ever thought of. I can imagine that having a QB as good as rodgers might give the defense a desire to try and push the limit as much as possible to get a "head start" or a good jump or something. And having a QB who is "good" at the hard count. That is some interesting data you have for it though. Where are you getting the data? Manually?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 3 times, last at 04/23/2012 3:30:42 pm

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 04/23/2012 @ 03:33:36 PM
I think the ESPN "box score" only totals accepted penalties, but their play-by-play accounts for penalties even if they are declined. Of course, with you secret and organized penalty data, you can refute any claim I make without me even being able to stand a chance. At least, until now!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 04/23/2012 @ 03:34:46 PM
Yeah. I really should finish that. I think there's some potential there. Edit: Also, I could list, or add to, the NFL list a column for only accepted penalties, there just isn't. That's one of the reasons I stopped. There's like 23299 potential columns of data on each table, and I don't know which to show. I considered some sort of column chooser, but that would slow it down, where as now it's only slow because the cache is turned off.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this at 04/23/2012 3:38:20 pm

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 04/23/2012 @ 03:35:49 PM
Although, considering how secretive the NFL is about so much of their stuff, I'd expect a knock on your door sometime soon.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 04/23/2012 3:36:06 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 03:42:56 PM
Yeah, I had considered that. I'm using data they make public though, just compiled. I avoided logos for that reason. I might remove the team names as well. Maybe they'll come knocking with a check.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 04/23/2012 @ 03:46:38 PM
Even if there was a Bill Jamesian type analisys of anything in football, 16 games (plus 3 or 4 playoff games) does not a very good sample size make. Anything you might conclude form any stastical correlation that isn't already being used will probably not pass the "over the long term you will do better if..." So much of football has to do with "luck"*; **, whether good or bad. *and not necessarily the "oh COME ON" kind of luck, but rather the kind of luck that says that over the course of a very small period of time anything can happen without feasible explanation. **well, except the Packers obviously		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 3 times, last at 04/23/2012 3:49:34 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/23/2012 @ 04:02:27 PM
No, it would just be interesting to see correlations between penalties and score/wins/losses.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - So's your face 04/23/2012 @ 06:44:36 PM
How do you guys get any work done?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - I believe virtually everything I read. 04/23/2012 @ 08:19:20 PM
Done?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 04/23/2012 8:19:48 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/25/2012 @ 10:19:35 AM
Nick Collins to be released. Sad day for a good player.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/25/2012 @ 10:28:54 AM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 10:19:35 AM Nick Collins to be released. Sad day for a good player. Jeremy Wrote - 04/23/2012 @ 01:27:23 PM I assume the Vikings have dispatched a helicopter.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 04/25/2012 10:29:07 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 04/25/2012 @ 11:05:04 AM
And with Collins and Clifton gone, only Donald Driver stands in the way of Rodgers being the longest tenured Packer (although Driver I don't think is under contract at the moment, so technically, Rodgers already is, at least for now). Now that puts time into perspective.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 04/27/2012 @ 08:02:13 AM
http://www.startribune.com/sports/vikings/149170945.html The Vikings move last night was impressive. For Spielman, all the calling, negotiating and maneuvering Thursday provided exactly the kind of joyride he longed to be in the driver's seat for, gaining that opportunity with his January promotion. His first draft move was a something-for-nothing trade with Cleveland. The Vikings scared the Browns into a draft night do-si-do, fleecing them of fourth-round, fifth-round and seventh-round picks as the teams swapped places at the top of Round 1. Cleveland took running back Trent Richardson at No. 3. From ESPN: http://espn.go.com/nfl/draft2012/story/_/id/7859778/minnesota-vikings-push-all-right-buttons-day-1 Winners 1. Minnesota Vikings: Vikings general manager Rick Spielman proved to be the shrewdest among the wheelers and dealers. He was able to get three additional picks from the Cleveland Browns and still get the player the Vikings wanted -- left tackle Matt Kalil. The process started by getting the word out that they wanted to draft either Kalil or cornerback Morris Claiborne. The idea was to convince the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, who started with the No. 5 pick, that they might be left with Claiborne if the Vikings selected Kalil and the Browns selected running back Trent Richardson. He also got word out that other teams were interested in picking No. 3. Unlike the Bucs, the Browns knew the Vikings wouldn't take Richardson; they have Adrian Peterson on the roster. Although the Vikings didn't get a second- or third-rounder, the acquisition of a fourth-, fifth- and seventh-round pick gave them even more flexibility in this draft. That upped their draft total to 13 picks. As the round developed, the Vikings were able to move back into the first round in a deal with the Baltimore Ravens to get safety Harrison Smith. The Vikings came out with Kalil and Smith, and have 10 more choices over the final two days of the draft. It doesn't get much better than that. You don't often get a glimpse into the mind of a GM, especially one that pulls off such a genious set of moves. After watching Moneyball (obsess much?), you get a feel that there must be a certain degree of mad scientist in a good GM. Interesting to read this.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this at 04/27/2012 8:20:26 am

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 04/27/2012 @ 10:20:11 AM
Yeah, about the only other team you could even make a case for is St. Louis. (I mean, obviously both Viking picks might be huge busts, but in terms of playing the draft as a game in and of itself) St. Louis parlayed their number 3 pick into a rosters worth of draft picks...but they also, in turn, passed on some top flight talent. The Vikings got 3 picks for free, and still got their top 3 guy. Either way the Rams moves were more about the next few years, so, especially if constrained to just last night, the Vikings' night was tough to beat. So far so good, I was dreading that they'd actually talked themselves out of Kalil. Not because I think he's a lock, but because I hate it when teams watch players play football for 3-4 years in college, and then let a few seconds worth of no-pad running, and some bench presses, blow up the draft board.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 04/29/2012 @ 08:18:57 PM
Packer writer Bob McGinn is better at predicting the draft than even the venerable Mel Kiper Jr. McGinn was scored the best in the country for the 2nd year in a row. He had 85 correct picks in the first 100 overall.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 05/15/2012 @ 08:37:12 AM
Driver's future uncertain. I've seen a couple of articles from state writers suggesting the Packers will likely part ways with Driver. My feeling is that it's less about the money now and more about freeing up a roster spot for another young receiver. If Driver is only going to have 30-40 receptions, it might be time to let one of the younger guys on your roster develop. If there is one thing the current Packers' management team has done it has been knowing when to cut a guy loose--or at least being willing to do so. I'm talking guys who are the faces of the franchise. Favre several years ago was obviously a high profile case. But just this year alone they've departed with Chad Clifton and Nick Collins, both of whom are bound for the Packer Hall of Fame (Collins, who may have been on track for an NFL HOF career). All that being said, the Packers have to contend with this concept: Letting go three franchise faces in a matter of days, even if it's the right thing to do, is not an image enhancer for an organization that leads with image.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 05/15/2012 @ 02:39:03 PM
Driver is one Packer I hope the Vikings actually pick up. I think he'd bring more to the receiving corp than some of the corpses we have wearing jerseys in the 80s, if nothing else but knowledge. Plus it would be fun to see much of Packer Nation do their usual move of rationalizing how they "never really liked" Driver.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 05/15/2012 @ 03:34:25 PM
His fun little jig when getting a first down will suddenly become a classless, arrogant move. Why do the Vikings always sign former packers? First Longwell, Sharper, Favre, Bevell, then Clifton, now Driver? It's like it's being written into the contracts of some players "when you're done with us, the Vikings have dibs on you". Of course, I'm overstating this, because I'm pretty sure in the recent history it's only been Longwell, Sharper, and Favre. Clifton was a joke, more in reference to an ealier comment of yours. Driver was down to 4th on the Packers Depth chart last year in terms of total snaps played. So you can have our 4th best receiver (would be 5th best this year most likely). He has said that he wants to play until he's 40, and his reasoning is because Jerry Rice played till he was 40.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 05/15/2012 @ 04:32:42 PM
You forgot Superstar "Robert" Ferguson. There might have been a couple more as well, or other they looked at, but it was the same thing with other teams, especially the Eagles. Brad Childress would choose an average middle of career talent with West Coast Offense experience over a younger more promising player 9 times out of 10. Most teams have lots of ex everybodies. We just take special note when it's a Packer Viking swap and think nothing of it when they go to the Bills, Saints, and whatnot. Also, even if there aren't "notable" ex-Vikings turned Packers, other than maybe Gilbert Brown, all that might mean is the Vikings don't cut their players when they still have a decade of being productive still in them. (Unless they look like they're one triple whopper with cheese, heavy everything, no pickle, cut in half, away from eating themselves out of the league) Sharper and Longwell were damn near in their primes, so I think the general "hehe, the Vikings want all the Packer retreads" reaction that the internet always has is a tad unfair. The only one I even think that applies to is Ferguson, but it's not like the Vikings thought he'd be a hall of famer some day either. I think he played like 12 snaps the one and a half or so seasons he filled out the roster. Edit:Upon further review he had 32 catches in 2007...I think NFL.com is wrong. That puts him at second in catches on a corp headlined by Bobby Wade. Clearly the Vikings were desperate in 2007. Other than being suspicious of the "you're asking specifically because it's a 'trick'" aspect; If you asked me to bet my house on the over/under that he was on the field more than 25 times in his entire 1.5 seasons with the Vikings I would have confidently taken the under.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 12 times, last at 05/15/2012 5:23:17 pm

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 05/16/2012 @ 07:56:43 AM
Gilbert Brown never actually played for the Vikings. They gave up on him before the season even started, and then he went on to have a respectable career (in 2 separate stints, separated by a hiatus of using his belly as a dining room table while sitting on the couch eating his burgers). And on the subject of cutting players that still have productivity left, maybe there's something to that, but maybe not in the way you mean. (and maybe all you meant was that the Vikings aren't foolish at all for picking up ex-Packers because the Packers have a tendency to cut still-productive players) Thompson has several notable instances of cutting or getting rid players that can still play (Sharper, Marco Rivera, Mike Wahl, Favre, Nick Barnett, Longwell). But with that, they have stayed young, and in doing so have avoided the trap that sometimes comes with holding on to a player that while might still be good, gets more expensive with age. In other words, is Sharper (a 9 year veteran coming off an expiring 6 year, $30million contract) really $6million dollars better than a potential low price replacement? It's an interesting debate. I will say, though, in all fairness, Robert Ferguson is probably an example of a player that Green Bay fans actually didn't like. He pretty much just sucked. And couldn't see very well (actually had lasik eye surgery at one point during his Packers career).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 05/17/2012 @ 02:46:03 AM
Scott Wrote - 05/15/2012 @ 08:37:12 AM I'm talking guys who are the faces of the franchise. Favre several years ago was obviously a high profile case. But just this year alone they've departed with Chad Clifton and Nick Collins, both of whom are bound for the Packer Hall of Fame (Collins, who may have been on track for an NFL HOF career). All that being said, the Packers have to contend with this concept: Letting go three franchise faces in a matter of days, even if it's the right thing to do, is not an image enhancer for an organization that leads with image. Favre was a face of the franchise. Clifton and Collins, however good they might be at football, are not the faces of the franchise. Know how I know? I have no idea what they look like. I know what Rodgers looks like. I know what Driver, Jennings, and Matthews look like. I know what Tony Clifton looks like. But not so much on Chad Clifton and Nick Collins. OK, I won't claim to be the official judge of this, but I feel like I'm a decent barometer. I kind of follow sports. And in all sincerity, I'm not knocking those guys. Sounds like they've had great careers. But it's a tall order to be considered a face of the franchise. And I get that it's not necessarily all literal, so it's not entirely about their actual face, but it sort of is. Football players aren't easily identifiable by nature so there has to be some sort of transcendence happening for people to actually recognize a player's face, especially if he's totally out of uniform. (And yes, I know it's not all merit based; some guys are recognized for factors other than performance alone.) I know a few of us had an actual discussion once about how many players we would actually recognize in street clothes, in a "neutral" location, and be confident about the fact that he was actually who we thought.* I found it to be an interesting exercise. Plus, there's the elephant in the room of how race plays a factor in how well people can recognize and identify other people. Clifton and Collins are what I would call jerseys of the franchise. Or names of the franchise. They're notable Packers. Been around long enough and done well enough to have their names be recognized and associated with the team. Just not faces. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I don't think so. Actually, does anyone else think it might be fun to play "Faces of the Franchise" on here? Maybe name the 2 or 3 guys for each franchise? *True story about recognizing players in everyday life: I have a friend who recognized Matt Cassel in an airport this last winter and actually approached him and talked to him. And my friend is not a Chiefs fan or a Patriots fan or a USC fan. He's a Packer fan and I think he has lived in Wisconsin his whole life. He has no reason to know what Matt Cassel looks like. At least not to the point of recognizing him in street clothes and being confident enough to approach him about it. Granted, this friend is a pretty big football fan, but I'm still blown away by it.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 05/17/2012 2:49:20 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 05/17/2012 @ 07:24:29 AM
To be fair, maybe I misquoted the article. The writer refered to them as "franchise faces", and I interpretted that as "faces of the franchise", which might not be a transitive relationship. The players in question were indeed "franchise players". That being said, do you have to recognize the actual face for a player to be the "face of the franchise"? It's more the name or concept of the player that is what stands out; or who you think of when you think of the team. That being said, also, Nick Collins, for instance, was probably not hardly recognized even on the field by many a Packer fan. That doesn't change the fact that he was a franchise player. I recognized Max McGee when he was staying at the same hotel Melissa and I stayed at the night of our wedding. Not quite the same, because he was a Packer, but he wasn't a current packer, so maybe it's a little more impressive than if I was excited for recognizing Aaron Rodgers. My brother shared an elevator with Paul Molitor once when my brother was an usher at the Metrodome. He actually had a conversation with him. I shared a hot tub once with former Brewers pitcher Doug Henry (he was a current Brewer at the time), but that's a story for another time.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott perfected this 2 times, last at 05/17/2012 7:25:51 am

	Scott - 6225 Posts 05/17/2012 @ 07:55:25 AM
On the game of "faces of the franchise", here goes. For starters, is facial recognition a key/primary component? Or is that just cliche? Or is it more of the player that has come to embody what you know or who you think of when you think of that franchise? I think that's probably more what people think of when they think of "face of the franchise." I'm not sure if I should limit it to a certain number. That might not be fair to do. A good team shouldn't be penalized just because they have a lot of recognizable players when a bad team only has one. There's also the question of performance. Driver seems like an obvious face of the franchise, but he's not all that good anymore. He's the face because he was really good once and because he's been here for a long time. If I had to create a list from which to start and then whittle it down (possibly), I'd go with Rodgers, Driver, Jennings, Matthews, Woodson, Collins (although he's not a Packer player anymore), Clifton (ditto), and that might be it. Woodson is an interesting one. At this point, his years with the Raiders still outnumber his years with the Packers, but his career has exploded since joining the Packers so much that people almost tend to forget that he played with the Raiders. Seriously, look at his yearly stats. He was no more than ordinary with the Raiders. His story is similar to Reggie White. White was already the all-time sacks leader when he came to Green Bay, but people seem to forget that he ever played anywhere else. Or if they do remember, they don't realize that his time in Green Bay was not that long. If Woodson plays out his current contract to expiration, he will have amassed more years in Green Bay than in Oakland, and I think (if he hasn't done so already) that will fully cement his legacy as a Packer first, and a Raider second. Although, if the face of the franchise changes year to year based on ability, Woodson may be close to sliding off the list. I don't think he's there yet though. Jennings is the new face. He goes about his thing quietly, although he does make waves. He is very good on the field, and extremely active off the field. Matthews hasn't quite been around long enough to warrant "face of the franchise" status. He needs a few more years under him and he will most likely be. While Driver's abilities have dwindled to the point where is 4th, maybe 5th on the depth chart (and may not even be on the team), there's little doubt he is probably one of 2 players Packer fans and non-Packer fans alike think of when they think of the Packers. Although I was going to keep him off the list because of the first point, it's a tough call because he's the longest tenured Packer (he was drafted by Ron Wolf!--and sort of by Ted Thompson, who was director of player personnel at the time), and he is the Packers all-time leading receiver. But this all begs the question about what "face of the franchise" really means. If it's purely on facial recognition, then Driver and Rodgers might be the only two on the list. But if my criteria is in play, and recent history and current ability play bigger roles, then my list below is probably the most accurate. So if I had to whittle it down to three or four, I would go with Rodgers, Woodson, Jennings, and Driver. *this could have been a separate article or blog post, but meh.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 05/17/2012 7:57:25 am

	Alex - I don't need to get steady I know just how I feel 05/17/2012 @ 01:19:31 PM
Driver is way more of a franchise face than Clifton or Collins. 9 times out 10 I'd probably be against non-performance reasoning to keep a player, but if Driver still wants to play, and can play even if only as a 4th receiver he needs to remain a Packer. I think actual face recognition is part of it, Driver has local commercials, has been on the team for a long time, probably is now know as "that Packer on that dancing show", etc none of which apply to Clifton or Collins.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 05/17/2012 @ 01:36:53 PM
The risk in keeping Driver is this: He probably won't be any more productive this year than a 4th or 5th receiver. Keeping him could mean that Packers have to release one of their younger receivers, who might be a pretty productive player if not this year then in the future. Keeping him could also mean taking snaps away from the likes of Cobb, who is likely to become a pretty good receiver. That being said, there is something to say about having a veteran in the receiving corpse. And his abilities haven't dwindled that much. I sort of wish they keep him, but I don't think I'd be too upset about it if they cut him. Alex Wrote - Today @ 01:19:31 PM I think actual face recognition is part of it, Driver has local commercials, has been on the team for a long time, probably is now know as "that Packer on that dancing show", etc none of which apply to Clifton or Collins. commercials: driver has those, the other guys don't been on the team for a long time: Clifton has been on the team for a long time (drafted one year after Driver) "that packer on the dancing show": you might as well have said "his name is driver" because literally only Donald Driver fits that criteria. So I agree that Driver is highly highly more of a face of the franchise than Collins or Clifton. But that really wasn't the point. It's not a mutually exclusive thing. The point is that the Packers have cut 2 "franchise faces" in a matter of days, and might be on the road cutting a third one. I think we might be torturing the language to a small degree. So I still stand by my original comment, and the subsequent list I created.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this at 05/17/2012 1:37:54 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 05/17/2012 @ 01:44:17 PM
Driver just tweeted: "Hello everyone: I'm a packer for life. It will never change. Go Pack Go!!!!" I wonder if he knows something.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 05/17/2012 @ 02:26:35 PM
I'm not sure "franchise faces" is something a fan of the team can even decide/define. You might be too close to the situation. (Though obviously we'd be pretty good at guessing who a Chargers fan might say.) Jon's other comments were regarding a discussion we had which was was that, pretend you're in a public place. Disneyland, a mall in the middle of no where, etc, and a member of the Packers/Vikings/your team walks past. We're not talking about the IGA in Green Bay. Or at the San Diego Zoo when the Packers are on a bye and are about to place the Chargers. You're in a place that the player has no obvious reason to be there. How many Green Bay Packers would you feel confident enough that you recognize them in a sea of strangers that you could be willing to say "Hey _____. Big fan.", or whatever. The elephant in the room he mentioned is that with African American players it's even harder. 1) You want to avoid, at all costs, the "we all look alike"? conversation. So you need to be even MORE sure. 2) It actually often is harder for us honkeys to tell them apart. Not because black people actually DO look any more "alike" than white people, or any other group, (although, by definition, some race has to have the least differentiation, and another one the most, but that's a side point) but because it's just a simple fact of biology/psychology that the further away from you/your family/your surroundings you get, the more alike the things that don't look like you SEEM to look. Everyone can differentiate their race with more ease*, and, for that matter, can differentiate people easier than monkeys, and probably monkeys easier than grasshoppers. *It probably does seem a little more one sided in America, because African Americans are soaked in a sea of whitey pretty much their whole lives, so they might get more....practice? I'm not sure what word I want there.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy perfected this 5 times, last at 05/17/2012 2:34:09 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 05/17/2012 @ 03:00:39 PM
I'm not sure I agree with the premise. Of course, it depends what "face of the franchise" really means. I think it has more to do with the embodiment a player takes on for the team. Based on your premise, Nyjer Morgan only slightly less the "face of the franchise" for the Brewers, since he is all over sportcenter with his antics and whatnot. That's what what I have in mind. That goes to the very core of "what does face of the franchise mean", and is the same thing as "franchise face"? Chad Clifton was a "franchise face". That doesn't mean he is the face of the franchise. And in terms of team embodiment, what the heck do you care what the fan of another team thinks about your team/players? If that's the case, the Viking fans largely thought the Packers had the worst QB ever from 92 to 07.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it. 05/17/2012 @ 03:40:56 PM
Furthermore, someone like Clifton who played for the Packers for 11 years isn't a "franchise face" or one of the "faces of the franchise" because some fan in Miami couldn't pick him out in a crowd of a bunch of other random people? I don't agree with that being the definition of "face of the franchise" or the not quite the same thing of "franchise face" Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 02:26:35 PM How many Green Bay Packers would you feel confident enough that you recognize them in a sea of strangers that you could be willing to say "Hey _____. Big fan.", or whatever. This is why I don't think "face of the franchise" really has much to do with actual facial recognition. Every one who is a fan of the Packers knows who Chad Clifton is. Being able to pick the face out in a crowd means nothing. Growing up, until I was close to high school age, the Brewers were not on TV up by me, so I spent my entire childhood and partial teenage years having virtually no clue what any of the Brewer players looked like. Does that mean that there was no "face of the franchise"? I dont' think you have to actually recognize the "face". The term "face of the franchise" is a term that I believe is more generic than that. I'll explain myself better later because I don't have a lot of time right now but I'll tease what I'm thinking about: If "face of the franchise" is to be taken 100% literal in that it refers to the player that is most recognizable to someone other than a fan of that team, then it is nearly without question that Tim Tebow is the face of the new york Jets. If I was a Jets fan, and some idiot Packer fan told me that, I'd be raging inside. But based on the expressed criteria so far of my opposition debaters, it's true.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 05/17/2012 3:48:19 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 05/17/2012 @ 03:53:59 PM
If the question is the winners of "who do you think of when you think of the Packers" then, being a Packer Fan puts you too close to the action. It's not really "what people think of the players", just what players people are most apt to think of. * There might be lots of players that have been on the Dolphins for their whole ~10 year career that are still playing, and Dolphin fans might be able to name them. But if the rest of the NFL's fans can't recognize, or even name, any of them then calling them a "franchise face" is probably not right. ** Tim Tebow is just a face. The recognition game is just about recognition. It was mainly an aside about how surprisingly few players we'd actually recognize out of context. Though, Jon transitioned to it by contemplating if the face of the franchise should literally have a recognizable face, and seems to have concluded probably, and I'm inclined to agree. *I also never claimed this was some sort of hard and fast rule, just that it's probably a better heuristic, for these purposes, to ask people who don't follow the team who they picture when they think of the Packers than it is to ask someone who lives/sleeps/eats the Packers, who might totally over emphasize how many NFL fans can even name what team Nick Collins played for. **Though I understand what they're going for here. There are some players that come and go, and other players that were relevant to their team for an extended period of time. These players are in the latter group. The hang up is if throwing the word "face" in there, even if "face of the franchise" and "franchise face" are different (which I'll sign on to), implies they have to actually be faces you do or could think of.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 05/17/2012 4:31:55 pm

	Scott - On your mark...get set...Terrible! 05/17/2012 @ 09:26:23 PM
I still think you guys are taking the word "face" to be too literal. Fine, then I'm not talking about what some fan in Kansas City thinks about the Packers. an 11 year vet and a 4 time pro bowler, along with the franchise's all-time leading receiver, all of whom have played their entire careers the Packers, are "faces of the franchise" as far as the local fans are concerned. If some sports writer at ESPN wants to tell me who I should think the face of my franchise is, go right ahead. But the national writers tend to know very little about the teams they claim to cover compared to the local writers. I for one would rather submit to the local fan to find out who the face of their franchise is. Because who am I to say who is the embodiment of a particular team's character. I once told an Eagle's fan that McNabb was the face of that franchise (maybe not in those terms, but something to that extent). It didn't over well. Eagles fans were never all that thrilled with McNabb as their QB. This guy responded that Brian Dawkins was they player they thought would represent this. So who's right? Me, or the guy in the know? I'll put it this way, Clifton will be in the Packer hall of fame. Collins could possibly be considered a Packer hall of famer. And that is a noteworthy accomplishment, not just handed out to any player that donned a Packer uniform. The point is that in less than a week, both of these players were cut, and a third, Driver, is sort of on the edge of being cut and being retained. All three players were franchise players/faces/guys/dudes/etc. So as far as Packer fans are concerned, 2 of 3 of their best players, or at one time were considered their best players, longest tenured, and highly successful, were cut, and a third is on the cusp. That is a lot for a franchise to swallow in one off-season. That was the point of the article, and that was point I was trying to make. I could care less if a non-packer fan thinks Clifton or Collins has a recognizable face or not. So in conclusion, what do you call a player who has been spanned 3 presidents, been an extremely good player, is a fan favorite (but not like a fad fan favorite like a nyjger morgan), who's name has become synonymous with a team (even if only locally), but because he doesn't plant himself in front of cameras every chance he gets or doesn't play a sexy position is somewhat/mostly unknown to those outside of his local fan base?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott edited this 2 times, last at 05/17/2012 9:38:14 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 05/17/2012 @ 10:44:41 PM
I really don't know what the entry requirements are for the Packer HOF, but just off the top of my head I only recall Collins having maybe 3 good seasons. And he was released for injury reasons, which is different than say like when they let Sharper walk. Clifton too is probably pretty well washed up at this point. So that's why I see Driver as in a totally different situation. In other words Clifton and Collins are gone but it wasn't really much of a management decision in the first place, Driver I feel still has value so whether he's the 3rd "good player" released in a certain amount of time or not is not really a thing to me. It's 3 totally unrelated decisions.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 05/18/2012 @ 01:46:17 AM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 09:26:23 PM I still think you guys are taking the word "face" to be too literal. Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:53:59 PM Though, Jon transitioned to it by contemplating if the face of the franchise should literally have a recognizable face, and seems to have concluded probably, and I'm inclined to agree. Jeremy is correct in this regard. If the general sports fan population honestly doesn't know what the guy actually looks like -- in this day and age, and specifically in the nation's most popular sport -- then you'd have to make a pretty strong argument for me to consider him to be the FOF (yeah, just did that). It's not that I'm tripping up on the literal meaning of "face" as much as it is that I can't think of anyone I'd use that title for who wouldn't actually be widely recognized by his face. I think there is a literal component to it, but beyond that, they just go hand in hand anyway. And I don't know if this next explanation is actually being more literal, or more metaphorical, but a person's face is what the people on the outside see and recognize as that person. They don't see all his internal organs, however important they might be. Chad Clifton may very well be the pancreas of the Packers' franchise. But he's not the face. He's just not. But ultimately, we're probably just defining it differently. Honestly, I skimmed some of the posts, but I feel like you want the title to have more...I don't know...prestige...than I might give it. Being beloved by fans and teammates, and having a good, long career with the club will most likely be characteristics of the FOF. But I wouldn't say the converse is true. Being beloved, or long-tenured, or even just all around good doesn't automatically give you that status. Obviously, by my definition, it's going to be way harder for the left guard to be FOF than it is for the quarterback. But I never claimed it was a meritocracy.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon edited this at 05/18/2012 1:51:18 am

	Jon - 3443 Posts 05/18/2012 @ 02:28:07 AM
Scott Wrote - Yesterday @ 03:40:56 PM If "face of the franchise" is to be taken 100% literal in that it refers to the player that is most recognizable to someone other than a fan of that team, then it is nearly without question that Tim Tebow is the face of the new york Jets. Well, the premise is wrong, and the conclusion happens to be wrong also. Rex Ryan is the face of the franchise.* I'm not sure they have another one (yet). I think Revis is on the cusp.** Tebow can't be. He hasn't played a game for them. He's still more connected to the Broncos than he is to the Jets. I don't want to repeat my previous post, but it's not all facial recognition. That's just a natural part of it. *That's right, I say coaches count. Off the top of my head, I'd say the only other coach that could be the #1 face of the franchise is Bill Belichick, and probably only if he shared the title with Brady. **Seems like he's more of a name than a face at this point, but that could change in the near future. I'd listen to arguments for him, but he's not unseating Rex Ryan at this point in time. Also, I'm going to throw this out there: I don't think every franchise necessarily has a FOF. And yes, I have decided that I am going to be the final word on this subject. That's the way the NFL works. All the power in one person's hands.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon screwed with this 3 times, last at 05/18/2012 2:46:12 am

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 05/18/2012 @ 08:13:13 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:44:41 PM I really don't know what the entry requirements are for the Packer HOF, but just off the top of my head I only recall Collins having maybe 3 good seasons. I'm not sure the criteria either, but if Don Majokowski and his 57 career touchdown passes to go along with 56 interceptions, and only played 6 seasons for the Packers anyway, maybe their standards are pretty low afterall. Majokowski did have one really good year yardage-wise, but he only had 2 seasons with over 2000 passing yards. Collins played for 7 years and made the pro bowl 3 times (I mistakenly said 4 earlier). If Majokowski got in, Collins should get in; or if not Collins, Majokowski should be reconsidered.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Washington Bureau Chief 05/18/2012 @ 08:32:06 AM
All I know is that the Minnesota Twins have only one FOF, and it's Alex Burnett.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this at 05/18/2012 8:57:31 am

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 05/18/2012 @ 08:47:06 AM
Well, the writer called Collins and Clifton "franchise faces". I don't think there is much to dispute there. Maybe he wasn't referring to the general NFL fandom, maybe he was referring to the local fans. Or maybe he was referring to just inside the locker room, and the impact of losing 2 stalwarts at the same time. Either way, I think this discussion has dissolved into something other than the original intent of the comment.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - infinity + 1 posts 05/18/2012 @ 11:56:23 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:47:06 AM Either way, I think this discussion has dissolved into something other than the original intent of the comment. I'm pretty sure you just summarized this entire site in that one sentence. The entire internet, really.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - 3443 Posts 05/18/2012 @ 11:59:16 PM
Matt Wrote - Today @ 08:32:06 AM All I know is that the Minnesota Twins have only one FOF, and it's Alex Burnett. I'm calling you out. I'm pretty sure Matt made this comment because he recognized and talked to Alex Burnett one time. However, if left to his own devices, Matt never would have been there in the first place. Luckily, he has people in his life that force him to have a good time every now and then.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jon messed with this at 05/18/2012 11:59:48 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 05/19/2012 @ 12:59:00 AM
I pointed out Burnett. Matt just decided to stalk him. White woman.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 05/19/2012 @ 01:55:39 AM
I'm pretty sure I recognized Burnett first.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 05/20/2012 @ 11:01:19 PM
Nope. I pointed him out and said he looked like Burnett, at which point you and Jon confirmed it was him, at which point you started after him.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 05/23/2012 @ 01:42:08 PM
http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7937696/nfl-future-power-rankings-projecting-every-franchise-entering-2015-season Packers are ranked 1st, Vikings are 31st.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Ma'am, can you make sure your computer is turned on? 05/24/2012 @ 12:56:16 PM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:42:08 PM http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7937696/nfl-future-power-rankings-projecting-every-franchise-entering-2015-season Packers are ranked 1st, Vikings are 31st. That's obviously wrong, because Skip Bayless picked the Bears to win the division this year. How can guys like Trent Dilfer, Mel Kiper, Gary Horton, Matt Williamson be allowed to write such drivel when a journalist as respected as Skip Bayless is in complete contradiction with them?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 05/24/2012 @ 01:08:03 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 12:56:16 PM Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:42:08 PM http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/7937696/nfl-future-power-rankings-projecting-every-franchise-entering-2015-season Packers are ranked 1st, Vikings are 31st. That's obviously wrong, because Skip Bayless picked the Bears to win the division this year. How can guys like Trent Dilfer, Mel Kiper, Gary Horton, Matt Williamson be allowed to write such drivel when a journalist as respected as Skip Bayless is in complete contradiction with them? I'm pretty sure they'll be playing the 2012 season this year, not the 2015 season		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 05/24/2012 @ 04:35:56 PM
Yeah, that just increases the level of assininity of this post. Even if you think the Packers have built a dynasty, those windows close fast. And the Vikings won't improve 1 team in 3 years? They'd have to go wrong on an awful lot of moves before then. Even if Ponder is a disaster they'll know that by then, and be better just for that. Seriously, what % of either roster will be on the 2015 version of the team? 30? 40?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this at 05/24/2012 4:50:23 pm

	Jon - 3443 Posts 05/25/2012 @ 01:57:59 AM
I refuse to click the link. I don't even look at power rankings for current seasons. Also, I'm pretty sure that article is a prime example of why I hate 99% of NFL journalism/analysis/media coverage.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jon - Nutcan.com's kitten expert 05/25/2012 @ 02:21:25 AM
Did I just get angry over a power rankings article?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 05/25/2012 @ 08:38:24 AM
I imagine the 3 year outlook has as much to do with their roster as it does with the guys building the roster. It also has a little to do about having players at key positions locked up for a certain period of time. That being said, I think it would be easier to predict the good teams that it would the bad teams. In recent years, there have been a lot of the same good teams (Packers, Patriots, Steelers, Saints). The low end teams don't always stay down consistently. All that being said, I usually don't write off an article until I read it first. Of course, I shouldn't be so harsh. I'm not the one who linked to an article that only shows the first 3% of the article.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott messed with this at 05/25/2012 8:51:17 am

	Jeremy - As Seen On The Internet 05/30/2012 @ 04:55:11 PM
Fail		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Scott - Get Up! Get outta here! Gone! 05/30/2012 @ 08:57:20 PM
They were all out of Farve jerseys apparently.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/04/2012 @ 12:00:59 PM
Cleat-gate errupts at Donald Driver softball game. One of the numerous articles I saw about this said something to the effect of "one nice aspect of the social media age is that no bad deed goes unpunished. If you do something stupid, and in public, and publish said stupidity on facebook, we will find you." Although I don't necessarily condone the "my life is ruined" attacks on such social media forums from something as simple as a rather mindless, if not extremely inconsiderate act, it does make for a good story. Driver has since reached out to the kid who had the cleat ripped from his hands and will probably come away with something far cooler than a sweaty, dirty, smelly, useless, one-half of a pair of baseball cleats.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 06/04/2012 @ 03:03:22 PM
Well, I think we go overboard with the whole "A [ball/shoe/autograph] means nothing to an adult, but is a life altering moment for a kid" attitude in our society. If, for example, this shoe went to this woman cleanly, and the kid started bawling, the reaction wouldn't be a whole lot different. She would be expected to give the shoe to him either way. (Much like the Texas baseball couple.) I don't think that's fair. I've seen players make it clear that they meant to get it to a specific person, and I have no problem with expecting that person, generally a kid, gets the item. They might be the only reason the item was tossed up there, and all that's going to happen if people start being bastards about it is they'll stop tossing crap in the crowd period. If they don't make it clear before or after, and Donald didn't appear to, I'd say it's fair game, as far as going after it. That said, if you're mugging a kid for an object, you might want to reevaluate things. Edit: Which reminds me of a story: After the Vikings lost the NFC Championship in 1998, which easily had to have been the most crushing defeat of his life, Cris Carter still tossed some of his items, including his helmet, into the crowd. The Eau Claire Leader Telegram reported that Carter angrily "threw his helmet at a small child" as he stormed off. My dad wrote to the paper asking for a correction, because we not only saw it, but because what are the odds an NFL player took out his anger by rather viciously assaulting a small kid, but the only story about it is in a medium sized town paper 100 miles away. The guy wrote back a while later saying he "stands by what he saw".		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this 3 times, last at 06/04/2012 3:28:03 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/04/2012 @ 03:09:49 PM
At least the Texas baseball couple can sort of claim (and possibly truthfully) that they weren't aware of the kid. They were going for a foul ball that was randomly hit in the direction of them and several other people, and the kid never had possession of the ball. The reaction of the general public to the Texas baseball couple was one of a bit more understanding, especially in light of the yankee's announcer going all soap-box on them without having a clue about the circumstance. But obviously, you can't control the knee-jerk reaction to something like this that comes with the social media age. Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 03:03:22 PM That said, if you're mugging a kid for an object, you might want to reevaluate things. The cleat-thief has since taken down her facebook page.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Super Chocolate Bear 06/04/2012 @ 03:22:44 PM
Also, just to be clear, I'm not "blaming" Donald for not making it clearer he intended it to go to the kid, or stick around to make sure he got it. I'm just saying he didn't appear to.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this at 06/04/2012 3:27:08 pm

	Scott - 6225 Posts 06/04/2012 @ 03:29:15 PM
Right, it wasn't like Driver was personally making a handoff to the kid and the lady pushed him out of the way. But the moment a wrestling match ensued, it was a little surprising that the kid was the one who seemed to use reasonably good judgement by giving up the fight. edit: I didn't take your comments about Driver as "blame" or even negative at all. But in true nutcan form, I was tempted to start a brawl after you pointed out that you "weren't" doing it. at least driver didn't angrily throw his helmet at a innocent grown woman who ducked and made sure it hit the kid instead		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 2 times, last at 06/04/2012 3:32:41 pm

	Jeremy - 9543 Posts 06/04/2012 @ 03:34:36 PM
Yeah, she was a grinch. I just think that a lot of time people go too far the other direction when these types of situations arise. The "it's just a ball/shoe" angle. It's not, and it's not "irrational" to have a desire for them.* Now, maybe, yes, a baseball cleat worn in a celeb softball game is low on the list, but acting like the "appropriate" response for "an adult" to have to, say, Aaron Rodgers handing you the jersey he wore that game is "Um...thanks for the dirty laundry...I guess. It's really not my size though." is absurd. *If anything it's the really young kids that want the ball just for "wanting a ball's" sake.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy edited this 3 times, last at 06/04/2012 3:43:17 pm

	Scott - Resident Tech Support 06/04/2012 @ 03:37:12 PM
This reminds me of a story. We were at a Twins Brewers game at the Metrodome way back in the early 90s. We were in the stands during BP somewhere along the rightfield line in seats that sort of hung over the bull pen area. Anyway, Kirby Puckett was throwing baseballs into the stands up to people hanging over the edge with gloves, and 2 or 3 peopel in a row dropped his throws. My sister had her glove, and Puckett called up to her "can you catch?" My sister responded "yes". He threw it, and she caught it. A lifelong Puckett fan (albeit Brewers fan) was born that day (that is, until the whole he might have issues with women thing came about). Puckett hit a walkoff homerun in that game (and I remember getting taunted by a bunch of drunk Twins fans as we exited the stands, but I did get a ball from an usher who first told me to take off my Brewers hat that he then placed a ball in).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Scott screwed with this 3 times, last at 06/04/2012 3:39:00 pm

	Jon - 1000000 posts (and counting!) 06/04/2012 @ 07:43:47 PM
Scott Wrote - Today @ 03:37:12 PM This reminds me of a story. We were at a Twins Brewers game at the Metrodome way back in the early 90s. We were in the stands during BP somewhere along the rightfield line in seats that sort of hung over the bull pen area. Anyway, Kirby Puckett was throwing baseballs into the stands up to people hanging over the edge with gloves, and 2 or 3 peopel in a row dropped his throws. My sister had her glove, and Puckett called up to her "can you catch?" My sister responded "yes". He threw it, and she caught it. A lifelong Puckett fan (albeit Brewers fan) was born that day (that is, until the whole he might have issues with women thing came about). Puckett hit a walkoff homerun in that game (and I remember getting taunted by a bunch of drunk Twins fans as we exited the stands, but I did get a ball from an usher who first told me to take off my Brewers hat that he then placed a ball in). I went to a game at Miller Park wearing my Twins hat. The usher told me to take it off and when I did he put a disgusting hot dog in it.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Scott - No, I did not change your screen saver settings 06/20/2012 @ 08:58:58 AM
Percy Harvin Wants Out of Minnesota		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.