DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**hacyOrgachbic** · 08-22-2006, 08:00 AM

In all fairness, I'm gonna stand up for this one. Has-beens, well that's an opinion thing, I'll leave that up to you, but never-will-be's, you have no proof other than a hunch that these guys won't become good players someday. One of the Packers top 5 safeties all time, Chuck Cecil, was a 4th round draft pick I believe. You have no reason to say that they are "never-will-bes" other than pure speculation. I could call every one of your draft picks "never-will-bes" if I wanted to, but I have nothing to back it up. It goes both ways.

Well, with all due respect. . .if I have the choice to hitch my wagon to a group of prospects OR to a guy that, when healthy, is a proven productive player at the NFL level, I'll go with the proven guy.

It boggles my mind how many Pack fans think that losing Darren Sharper is somehow supposed to make the Pack's defense better. I posted the positional rankings from PFW's pre-season issue a while back. According to their listing, you can count all the safeties in the NFL that are better than Darren Sharper on one hand. Literally. They said he was the 6th best safety in the NFL. Not in the NFC North, not in the NFC, but in the NFL.

Pack fans will say "Well, we saw him play every week last year, and he sucked." I'm going to go out on a limb here, but follow me anyway. . .I'm going to guess that there's at least one person working at PFW that somehow managed to catch all the Pack's games last season, too. Quite possibly even MORE than one. And DESPITE that, they decided that the only safeties in the entire NFL better than Darren Sharper were Ed Reed, Brian Dawkins, Rodney Harrison, Roy Williams, and Donovin Darius. That's it. . .that's the list.

Losing this guy makes the Packers' defense better somehow? You'll have to pardon me if I have trouble seeing that.

While that doesn't bode well for durability concerns, just because they were injured before, doesn't mean they will be this year. On your side of the equation, I've heard that "Michael Bennett will have a huge year this year" but he's no better than either of our guards as far as injuries are concerned. I have no problem with the statement, but again, it goes both ways.

You won't be hearing that from me. I've never been a huge Bennett believer, because he can't stay healthy long enough to be effective. Our best back, IMO, is Moe Williams, and it's not all that close. Moe, unfortunately, can't take the ass-kicking of being a full-time back any more.

Ciatrick Fason will probably be starting no later than mid-season anyway, barring injury. And if Bennett doesn't find a way to come up huge this year, it'll probably be his last season in Minnesota.

08-22-2006, 08:00 AM	#87
hacyOrgachbic Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 588 Senior Member	In all fairness, I'm gonna stand up for this one. Has-beens, well that's an opinion thing, I'll leave that up to you, but never-will-be's, you have no proof other than a hunch that these guys won't become good players someday. One of the Packers top 5 safeties all time, Chuck Cecil, was a 4th round draft pick I believe. You have no reason to say that they are "never-will-bes" other than pure speculation. I could call every one of your draft picks "never-will-bes" if I wanted to, but I have nothing to back it up. It goes both ways. Well, with all due respect. . .if I have the choice to hitch my wagon to a group of prospects OR to a guy that, when healthy, is a proven productive player at the NFL level, I'll go with the proven guy. It boggles my mind how many Pack fans think that losing Darren Sharper is somehow supposed to make the Pack's defense better. I posted the positional rankings from PFW's pre-season issue a while back. According to their listing, you can count all the safeties in the NFL that are better than Darren Sharper on one hand. Literally. They said he was the 6th best safety in the NFL. Not in the NFC North, not in the NFC, but in the NFL. Pack fans will say "Well, we saw him play every week last year, and he sucked." I'm going to go out on a limb here, but follow me anyway. . .I'm going to guess that there's at least one person working at PFW that somehow managed to catch all the Pack's games last season, too. Quite possibly even MORE than one. And DESPITE that, they decided that the only safeties in the entire NFL better than Darren Sharper were Ed Reed, Brian Dawkins, Rodney Harrison, Roy Williams, and Donovin Darius. That's it. . .that's the list. Losing this guy makes the Packers' defense better somehow? You'll have to pardon me if I have trouble seeing that. While that doesn't bode well for durability concerns, just because they were injured before, doesn't mean they will be this year. On your side of the equation, I've heard that "Michael Bennett will have a huge year this year" but he's no better than either of our guards as far as injuries are concerned. I have no problem with the statement, but again, it goes both ways. You won't be hearing that from me. I've never been a huge Bennett believer, because he can't stay healthy long enough to be effective. Our best back, IMO, is Moe Williams, and it's not all that close. Moe, unfortunately, can't take the ass-kicking of being a full-time back any more. Ciatrick Fason will probably be starting no later than mid-season anyway, barring injury. And if Bennett doesn't find a way to come up huge this year, it'll probably be his last season in Minnesota.
	Quote