LaFleur is out in GB. Gannon new HC

9 hours ago, mattwill said:

Your final sentence is totally consistent with evaluating the results of an experiment. If evaluation of a player’s performance in this kind of fluid situation isn’t part of the experiment design, then what is it?

It's the coach looking to win ... NOW

46 minutes ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

LaFleur is out in GB. Gannon new HC

The young people always say the the older people get fooled all the time with stuff they see on the internet, like it's too easy to get them to believe anything.

IDK, I'm at the age where old people think I'm young and young people think I'm old... but I hope the young people don't put me in the category where they think I fall for everything I see... especially on Facebook, where it seems like they put out false stuff more and more. Who knows?

But my guess... Facebook is the source saying that LaFleur was fired. Seems really odd to fire a coach this quickly??? But seems like a great Facebook fake story where they even add the details of who would be the next coach. My guess is that it would come after a day or two, not so much game night. Plus, the defense didn't look good at all so Gannon at this moment seems odd?

30 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

It's the coach looking to win ... NOW

Then in that case there is no experiment looking for the optimal long-term solution.

Which is more important, winning now or winning in February?

2 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

LaFleur is out in GB. Gannon new HC

I thought it was funny cause it's only week 3. But after research I only found that Packers fans are calling for Lafleur LePew to be fired.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/green-bay-packers-fans-demand-matt-lafleur-is-fired-immediately-after-embarrassing-defeat/ar-AA2cWcyi

The only change I see as possible over the next couple weeks on the OL would be Kendall being swapped out for Lampkin at C.

Not counting injuries believe the goal is to have Jurguens stay at LG until Dickerson is healthy to return(if he returns this season).

I could be mistaken on this but I also think the new OL and scheme relies on athletic G play could be another reason we opted for Jurguens at LG over Kendall( though still feeling Kendall was better option then Lampkin)

7 hours ago, mattwill said:

Then in that case there is no experiment looking for the optimal long-term solution.

Which is more important, winning now or winning in February?

You have to get to February first. So you play your best OL combo or what you feel would be the best... now

6 hours ago, EaglesTD123 said:

I thought it was funny cause it's only week 3. But after research I only found that Packers fans are calling for Lafleur LePew to be fired.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/green-bay-packers-fans-demand-matt-lafleur-is-fired-immediately-after-embarrassing-defeat/ar-AA2cWcyi

After one quick Google... it showed

FACEBOOK as the only source reporting the fake news...with the exact " Gannon is taking over" Facebook isn't a news source, if you see a story there, make sure to confirm with another source.

Unfortunately...it comes off like it is an actual legit news source way too often.

23 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

The only change I see as possible over the next couple weeks on the OL would be Kendall being swapped out for Lampkin at C.

Not counting injuries believe the goal is to have Jurguens stay at LG until Dickerson is healthy to return(if he returns this season).

I could be mistaken on this but I also think the new OL and scheme relies on athletic G play could be another reason we opted for Jurguens at LG over Kendall( though still feeling Kendall was better option then Lampkin)

💯.. They chose Kendall. After seeing all the other options which included Fred Johnson playing LG at practice and Jurgens playing some LG at camp. They chose Kendall instead of Lampkin.. we should assume they stick with it and build on it instead of starting over.

8 hours ago, joemas72 said:

The young people always say the the older people get fooled all the time with stuff they see on the internet, like it's too easy to get them to believe anything.

IDK, I'm at the age where old people think I'm young and young people think I'm old... but I hope the young people don't put me in the category where they think I fall for everything I see... especially on Facebook, where it seems like they put out false stuff more and more. Who knows?

But my guess... Facebook is the source saying that LaFleur was fired. Seems really odd to fire a coach this quickly??? But seems like a great Facebook fake story where they even add the details of who would be the next coach. My guess is that it would come after a day or two, not so much game night. Plus, the defense didn't look good at all so Gannon at this moment seems odd?

I don't like this Ai crap. SO much fake Ai "news" on many many many locations. I DID see it on FB, I had already taken my sleepy pill and didn't feel like staying up anymore. You will discover(in time) that what pills you take and when you take them alter your being. I will man up and say I was wrong to post it. Sorry about the TMZ 🤣🤷‍♂️ I love how FB can ban me for "going against community standards" yet their standards so low they are fine with FAKE, LYING,FALSE posts. All they have to do is hit Google and BAN those!!!! They can "fact check" me when I post a legit post,but lying is apparently fine with them

1 minute ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I don't like this Ai crap. SO much fake Ai "news" on many many many locations. I DID see it on FB, I had already taken my sleepy pill and didn't feel like staying up anymore. You will discover(in time) that what pills you take and when you take them alter your being. I will man up and say I was wrong to post it. Sorry about the TMZ 🤣🤷‍♂️

All good... I figured exactly that. No issue with me, the head coach for Green Bay is irrelevant to me... but their defense was a problem last night...gotta love starting out negative 6 in fantasy.... especially when you put In a defense ( in their home opener) that is facing an Atlanta offense who gave up the most fantasy points each of the first two weeks to their opposing defense!

2 minutes ago, joemas72 said:

All good... I figured exactly that. No issue with me, the head coach for Green Bay is irrelevant to me... but their defense was a problem last night...gotta love starting out negative 6 in fantasy.... especially when you put In a defense ( in their home opener) that is facing an Atlanta offense who gave up the most fantasy points each of the first two weeks to their opposing defense!

Horrible. I don't have the final numbers(too lazy to look them up), but my boy Robinson ran amok. To make matters worse London had a field day too like 200 yards apiece or something like that. They sure had cheese in GB it was the Swiss cheese defense. I think their BU RB(the "other Robinson") got some stats also. Just a horrible display at the home opener. I think they had a 13 straight wins at Lambeau in the opener?

45 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

The only change I see as possible over the next couple weeks on the OL would be Kendall being swapped out for Lampkin at C.

Not counting injuries believe the goal is to have Jurguens stay at LG until Dickerson is healthy to return(if he returns this season).

I could be mistaken on this but I also think the new OL and scheme relies on athletic G play could be another reason we opted for Jurguens at LG over Kendall( though still feeling Kendall was better option then Lampkin)

I'm just a bit concerned that nobody asked the question "OK who is backing up who?" I mean we should be in a position before week 1 to know who "next man up" is. The fact we had to "experiment" shows we never answered those questions in camp

Just now, GreenbleedinNC said:

I'm just a bit concerned that nobody asked the question "OK who is backing up who?" I mean we should be in a position before week 1 to know who "next man up" is. The fact we had to "experiment" shows we never answered those questions in camp

This really isn’t all that different from any year with us we tend to have a favored 6th man on the OL that fills in if someone goes down. Pretty sure it has been known for awhile that Kendall was going to be the next man up on the interior just like it will likely be Bell at T if needed

I will add though if Jurguens starts to play at a high level at G would we switch him back to C if/when Dickerson gets healthy? Would we look to just play Dickerson at C(he has filled in before and was a college C)

2 hours ago, joemas72 said:

You have to get to February first. So you play your best OL combo or what you feel would be the best... now

We will have to agree to disagree. Finding the optimal solution to our LG issues is more important than thanks increasing the chances of an immediate win that you already have a reasonable chance of winning anyway.

1 hour ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

This really isn’t all that different from any year with us we tend to have a favored 6th man on the OL that fills in if someone goes down. Pretty sure it has been known for awhile that Kendall was going to be the next man up on the interior just like it will likely be Bell at T if needed

Then why move Jurgens?

1 hour ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Then why move Jurgens?

Simple answer they feel like this gives us the best possible 5 starting.

Jurguens has experience as a G at the NFL level while Kendall only played C in college so it’s a more natural position for him.

And it’s not a short-term move it’s what minimum of 4 weeks before Dickerson can even be taken off IR(and that’s if he is healthy).

57 minutes ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

Simple answer they feel like this gives us the best possible 5 starting.

Jurguens has experience as a G at the NFL level while Kendall only played C in college so it’s a more natural position for him.

And it’s not a short-term move it’s what minimum of 4 weeks before Dickerson can even be taken off IR(and that’s if he is healthy).

Sure, but then the "next man up" theory doesn't hold because we had no BU for Dickerson. The next man up was already assigned a position(C). So the fact we had to move a C to LG tells me we weren't prepared for Dickerson missing time. Moving your C sounds more like a desperation play because you weren't prepared. JMO

Personal opinion, the only guy we have that has played LG is green rookie Morris who was a LG at Georgia. I understand he wasn't a high draft pick, yet he understands the position and is coming off years playing it in college. It can be brutal to toss a kid into the fire, but understanding the position already seems to me to be a distinct advantage. Once again I understand he was on the PS and may not be ready to rumble but C experienced Jurgens wasn't either at LG. I am not at practices and will let the pros do their jobs. If he is going to stay an Eagle maybe he needs to be tested. If he fails he's no good for us anyhow. I really wanted to draft line the last 2 drafts. We did get Bell in, working with Uar etc. IDK how much worse Morris would do vs moving 2 guys. Just thinking leave Jurgens at C and try other guys at LG. Unless of course Morris is a total disaster, but we brought him up and he is on the 53. If he was elevated to the 53 my thought is he can play the game or he would be cut. So we shall see where we go from here. Jurgens looked pretty lost so maybe Morris would be better understanding the position. IDK just tossing crap out to see if any sticks, but the crap has already hit the fan 😂 Maybe Kendall tries LG. We sure do have a mess to sort out. even when Dickerson returns we need to know who the next man up is

Anyway enough drivel about LG LOL. Now we need to get Lemon going and this is a good game to do it coming up

9 hours ago, Bleedinggreen93 said:

I will add though if Jurguens starts to play at a high level at G would we switch him back to C if/when Dickerson gets healthy? Would we look to just play Dickerson at C(he has filled in before and was a college C)

Neither, depending on the quality of Kendall’s play at Center. My suspicion is they would continue to roll with the Kendall Jurgens duo.

13 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

I'm just a bit concerned that nobody asked the question "OK who is backing up who?" I mean we should be in a position before week 1 to know who "next man up" is. The fact we had to "experiment" shows we never answered those questions in camp

To us it was an " experiment " to the Eagles,they were putting out what they thought gave them the best chance to beat Tennessee

13 hours ago, GreenbleedinNC said:

Horrible. I don't have the final numbers(too lazy to look them up), but my boy Robinson ran amok. To make matters worse London had a field day too like 200 yards apiece or something like that. They sure had cheese in GB it was the Swiss cheese defense. I think their BU RB(the "other Robinson") got some stats also. Just a horrible display at the home opener. I think they had a 13 straight wins at Lambeau in the opener?

Was the most points Green Bay gave up in their home opener since 1971... I was born in December 1972...so I've never seen it ...lol

11 hours ago, mattwill said:

We will have to agree to disagree. Finding the optimal solution to our LG issues is more important than thanks increasing the chances of an immediate win that you already have a reasonable chance of winning anyway.

Let me ask you....do you think Sirianni is taking a approach from 1960s business philosophy.. or he that he feels responsibility to Hurts, Barkley, Fangio, Howie, Laurie and the rest of the guys focused on beating Tennessee.... to put what they feel is the best OL on the field?

NFL = not for long.... if your organization is operating with the idea of winning ... you aren't in " experiment " mode.

But if the OL remains the same ( barring injury) then I think it's proof enough.