Comments on: Packers safety Nick Collins has post-game altercation with fan

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 19:35:18 +0000

Thanks Gravy, but I fear it is of no use. This guy showed signs of hope, but it sadly appears he’s just as big of a hypocritical homer as the rest of the bunch.

By: Gravy Makes Sconnies Fat

Gravy Makes Sconnies Fat — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 15:47:22 +0000

good god, favre finished 2nd in qb rating in the nfl last year and he was at least in the top 4 or 5 in mvp voting, just like he was in 07 and probly would’ve been in 08 before he tore up bicep muscle.
EVERYBODY admits favre had a brilliant season last year and a big part of it was having a wr that would go up and fight for the ball, which he hasn’t had this season yet.
nobody’s saying that rodgers isn’t a good qb but he didn’t finish with the 2nd highest qb rating in the league or top 4 in mvp voting.

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:33:25 +0000

By the way DSC, just curious as to who you claim to know voted for Favre for MVP. Please, enlighten.

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:29:17 +0000

What has been easy DSC, being an enormous hypocrite? You keep trying to use arguments against me that I’ve already acknowledged, like how Favre shouldn’t have played hurt. Then when all else fails, you start chanting “bias,” which is incredibly hilarious coming from one of the most biased posters I’ve come across on here. I’ve never had any trouble admitting the flaws of Favre or the Vikes, but when someone questions your opinions of the mighty Rodgers, you call them stupid and bias. Get over yourself.
And Rice was expected to be a Pro Bowler last year? Really, do you even believe this drivel you’re starting to post? Rice had played in 13 games each season his 2 previous years, and had 46 catches combined. 46 catches in 26 games, and suddenly, according to you, the whole world had him pegged as a Pro Bowler.
And no, I never mentioned the Jets record was the same before Favre, because it wasn’t. They were 4-12, Favre comes on board, plays hurt a third of the year, and they go 9-7. And there was no 2 game improvement last year, they went 9-7 again, check your facts, and stop making things up.

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 14:17:54 +0000

I was wrong about the MVP vote, my bad. Still, he got more than Rodgers, and if you recall, Rodgers never was in the conversation.
As for the stats, you keep omitting one key word, “passing”, where, like I’ve said, Favre led every category but yards last year. Favre didn’t need to run, he had AD to do that. But here you go:
Rodgers: 4434 yards, 64.7%, 30 TD’s, 7 INT’s, 103.2 QB rating, 50 sacks, 10 fumbles (4 lost)
Favre: 4202 yards, 68.4%, 33 TD’s, 7 INT’s. 107.2 QB rating, 34 sacks, 2 fumbles (2 lost)
Yes, I included sacks and fumbles. If you want to include the rushing stats, you need to account for the extra negatives Rodgers produced as well, such as the extra yards lost and drives killed with all those sacks, and the fact that he had more turnovers than Favre as well. And all of this while Favre was pulled in favor of TJack for mop-up, while McLardy let Rodgers play all game to pad his stats. And don’t say he didn’t do that, it’s no coincidence that Rodgers remained in that meaningless Week 17 game right up until he broke Favre’s season record, then was out on the next drive.
And I see you did mention the Jets coach, but failed to acknowledge the importance of it. You make it seem like no big deal, while in fact, it’s pretty significant. A coaching upgrade can vastly improve a team, look what Sparano did for the 1-15 Phins, or Mike Smith for the Falcons the same year. But you just write it off because it hurts your argument. That doesn’t fly here. Man up and admit your mistakes, I do.
Now you’re resorting to name calling because you can’t come up with solid statements to back your takes. I disagree with you, and say that GB had better offensive skill players than the Vikes, so that makes me stupid? Answer honestly, who would you have rather had going into last year, 2 proven guys in Jennings and Driver, or a 30 catch guy and a rookie in Rice and Harvin?
As for the O lines, you seem to forget that the Vikes had 2 first year starters on their line. They also have brought back that entire starting unit this year, and the pundits blast the O line as a major weakness of the Vikes. So are you trying to say the same 5 guys went from being great to terrible in one season? Come on man, use your head.

By: DSC

DSC — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:39:18 +0000

You also already mentioned the Jets record was the same without favre the eyar before….2 games better and trip to afc championship the year after……but favre was the best player then too?
And last year was the first year Rice played a full season……that is what people have expected him to do and im sure if he gets healthy he will do it again with or without favre. think favre misses taylor much?
Theres a reason people said the vikes would be good this year with or without favre because of all the talent….unfortunately he is hurting them now…
Remember in 2007 when favre dug a hole for us at dallas then played hurt? remember rodgers coming in and getting us back in the game and taking the lead at one point?
come on majik this has been easy…..im done with your garbage for now…

By: DSC

DSC — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 13:15:10 +0000

Majik,
What are you talking about kid? I said he didn’t play great but he didnt play bad….is there no “okay?”
I did mention the new coach….read again….
Favre got 1 MVP vote…that would put him behind manning, brees, and rivers for votes last year….nice “fact”….being a favre lover you should be able to guess who gave him the 1 vote…..superior stats? i already showed how wrong you were there for hte past 2 years…..get a clue……i really had a little hope for oyu but this is your most feeble argument yet….
If you think the pack had a more talented team then the vikes last year i guess ill leave your stupidity be and you can continue to show your true colors….
ill let oyu be….youre getting made look bias and obstinate by quite a few people on here and you should spend more time defending yourself ot them then arguing to me with that garbage….

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 09:28:21 +0000

DSC
When did you take a turn to extreme ignorance? I have a direct quote from you saying Rodgers didn’t play bad in Week 1, and you won’t even acknowlede it, saying “I said he didn’t play great.” Yeah, I realize this, but you also think his performance wasn’t bad, well, that is until you contradict yourself and say it was bad in a latter post.
As for Favre in ’08, absolutely, he shouldn’t have played with the injury. If you opened your eyes a bit instead of blindly screaming “Majik’s bias” you would realize I already said he shouldn’t have been out there. And if you do any basic common sense fueled investigation, you’ll see that the Jets finished with the same record in 08 and 09, just that 9-7 was good enough to make the playoffs in 09. And it’s funny how you neglect to mention one minor detail in that rant, a new head coach. Yet you call me biased, then neglect this detail and refuse to acknowledge how Favre’s play fell of while injured. Come on homer.
And now you’re trying to say MN had a better roster than GB, so that’s why Favre was better. Rice had never caught more than 30 passes, and Harvin was a rookie. Rodgers had 2 established good WR’s. Obviuosly, Favre had a better back, but then there’s the line. MN had 2 first year starters on theirs, the difference is that Favre didn’t hold the ball too long. So the better overall team is strictly your opinion, and a bad one at that, seeing as how you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who would have taken Rice and Harvin over Jennings and Driver at the start of last season. And yes, I do know what happens if you switch QBs last year, GB would have won the division. There’s good reason Favre finished in the top 3 in MVP voting, and Rodgers wasn’t in the conversation. It’s because a panel of experts, not fans like you and me, decided Favre was more valuable to his team than Rodgers was to his, and that Favre did more with what he had to work with.
It’s just baffling how you can scream bias at me, yet fail to realize your own. If the superior passing stats don’t do it for you, the MVP ballot should. You’re sounding more and more like the typical “we’ve got 12 championships” idiot Packer fan with each passing post. Truly sad, you could have done better.

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:10:36 +0000

ACS
You’re pretty tough behind that keyboard. I’ve given you every chance to back it up like a man, yet no response. And only someone as small and bigoted as yourself would view homosexuality as an insult. You’re pathetic, we’re done here, if you grow a set, you have the email address.

By: DSC

DSC — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:54:05 +0000

Majik Bullet says:
September 30, 2010 8:44 PM
DSC says: September 30, 2010 4:33 AM
Majik calling me bias…..puts a smile on my face……
I have agreed with many saying he didnt look great week one..bad no but again your crush on favre blinds you….
Right there, that’s a quote from you saying he didn’t play bad in Week 1, and now you are saying he did play poorly. So again, which one is it.
As for Rodgers vs. Favre, this is really the first time Rodgers has outplayed Favre. Yes, I’m saying Favre was better than Rodgers with the Jets, until he tore his bicep and kept playing (stupid decision by Favre to do so.) And last year, Favre out dueled Rodgers both head to head, and throughout the season, besting Aaron in every major passing category except for a 200 yard difference.
I don’t think Rodgers gets them even close to 13-3 in 2007. He put up great numbers in his first year starting, and no, 6-10 is not all his fault, but Rodgers did throw picks in 4 different games when he had a chance to drive for the lead or a tie in the final 5 minutes of the game, and there were 3 other drives that fizzled out in the end with the same scenario, just not ending with INT’s. Most Packer fans like to blame the D, but they were still in 7 of those losses at the end.
And I find it hard to believe any intelligent (key word here) Vikings fans would want Favre gone this year. He may be struggling, but considering the alternatives, he gives them the best chance to win by a long shot, and he’s still better than McNabb, so don’t try playing that card.
______________
Majik what are oyu talking about? i said he didnt look great week 1…..i have no idea what you are getting at here, but it does make me chuckle a little???
if you dont want to blame the D for 6-10 i guess your bias is bigger than i thought and will ignore it….
So why did the jets make it to the afc championchip game with a rookie qb last year and no playoff appearance with favre the year prior with basically the same team and adding a coach? dont blame his injury, he should have sat his self absorbed rear end down if he was so hurt.
2008 stats
Brett Favre with Jets:
3400 yards, 22 tds and 22 int, 81 rating, 5 fumbles, 40 rushing yards
A Rod with Pack:
Over 4000 yards, 28 tds vs 13 int, 93 rating, and he also had 4 rushing TDs, A Rod 4 fumbles over 200 rushing yards
Rodgers had more total TDs than farve last year, had more rush yards and pass yards, same INTs.
I feel the Vikes had the most talented team in the league last year since the 16-0 Pats. You put Rodgers on that team and Favre on the Packers last year and you know damn well what happens. With thm both having similar numbers and a better overall team in MN last year how can you not say Rodgers is superior ? Rodgers had those numbers with a worse line(second string line half the year on a team with a bad first string line) worse run game and similar receivers to Favre…..Your point is weak at best here pal….But again your bias is beyond me, i will let you get the last word in here cause i know its what you want and i had no idea what i was getting into with your extreme bias…i really thought you were starting to be more open minded but when you make your favre argument you proved me wrong again and then quote me which shows you were wrong about me saying rodgers was great week 1…..go ahead and take the last word….i feel like im arguing with a vikign fan….oh wait i am for now…until favre(majiks love) retires….maybe…

By: ACS2

ACS2 — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:42:59 +0000

Majik Bullet says:
September 30, 2010 10:19 AM
Wow, I couldn’t care less what a lowlife such as yourself thinks about my post. Not only are you by far the biggest idiot on here, easily beating out the likes of Bob Nelson and crew, but you’re human garbage. Go away, you’re not even close to relevant.
———-
I hope your son’s boyfriend gives him AIDS.
Yep. This time I insulted him. And in 10 years when he’s old enough to understand it, I hope you explain it to him.
Be sure to use stick figures.

By: slegeir

slegeir — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:34:15 +0000

How many intentional groundings did Mr. F have in his career? I can remember a ton! And hail mary’s, oh! And interceptions? Any one who plays for 20 years should have all the records broken. He made a lot of mistakes. But heck, most of them weren’t his fault.

By: slegeir

slegeir — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:28:04 +0000

Even with all the stupid penalties, the Packers almost won that game. Can’t wait til the Bears beat up on the Vikings! Better yet, the Packers do!

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 22:24:30 +0000

I never said that Favre wasn’t struggling, I know he is. The difference is that I never called the Vikings’ offense high powered, I’ve said pretty regularly that they need to improve, just like most Packer fans.
My point was just that how can someone say that the Vikes are struggling offensively, while the Packers are “high powered” when they have nearly identical total offensive output, albeit one dimensional for both teams, just a different dimension? It seems rather hypocritical to say that GB doesn’t need to run, and then blast Minny for not being able to pass.

By: DSC

DSC — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:54:13 +0000

Majik Bullet says:
September 30, 2010 3:53 PM
Super, I’m pretty sure I’ve clearly expressed how little I care what you think about who or what I root for. Especially considering the hypocrisy you have stated, saying that you can’t be a “true fan” unless you’re from the region of the team you root for, that is unless the team you root for is the Packers.
And it’s not that the Pack doesn’t try to run the ball, they do, to the tune of 25 attempts per game. They just can’t do it, they don’t have the talent (thanks Ted). That explosive offense (341 yards/ game, a whopping 13 more a game than the “struggling” Viking offense), isn’t even close to the juggernaut you and every other homer who bought into the hype thought it would be.
_____________________________
I agree Majik they haven’t been able to run the ball this year…and it is frustrating…but in ACSs defense…they have better running numbers then that Saints, Colts, Cowboys, and Bears…..
So when you use the yardage stat and say their offense isnt “high powered” consider they have a higher percentage of their total offense coming the pass while there run is not existent ……while the vikes are living off of AD(which why wouldnt you) and dying by BF.

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:44:44 +0000

DSC says: September 30, 2010 4:33 AM
Majik calling me bias…..puts a smile on my face……
I have agreed with many saying he didnt look great week one..bad no but again your crush on favre blinds you….
_________
Right there, that’s a quote from you saying he didn’t play bad in Week 1, and now you are saying he did play poorly. So again, which one is it.
As for Rodgers vs. Favre, this is really the first time Rodgers has outplayed Favre. Yes, I’m saying Favre was better than Rodgers with the Jets, until he tore his bicep and kept playing (stupid decision by Favre to do so.) And last year, Favre out dueled Rodgers both head to head, and throughout the season, besting Aaron in every major passing category except for a 200 yard difference.
I don’t think Rodgers gets them even close to 13-3 in 2007. He put up great numbers in his first year starting, and no, 6-10 is not all his fault, but Rodgers did throw picks in 4 different games when he had a chance to drive for the lead or a tie in the final 5 minutes of the game, and there were 3 other drives that fizzled out in the end with the same scenario, just not ending with INT’s. Most Packer fans like to blame the D, but they were still in 7 of those losses at the end.
And I find it hard to believe any intelligent (key word here) Vikings fans would want Favre gone this year. He may be struggling, but considering the alternatives, he gives them the best chance to win by a long shot, and he’s still better than McNabb, so don’t try playing that card.

By: DSC

DSC — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 19:41:19 +0000

Majik says:
First, you criticize me for saying he played bad in Week 1. Now you’re saying he didn’t look good. Which one is it, was he good or bad? Not sure where you went to school, but you can’t have it both ways.
And yes, I quit rooting for GB when the GM traded away their best player from a 13-3 team in order to go 6-10. Favre was always a favorite of mine, so I stuck with him because I refused to root for a Thompson run team, and now will remain a Viking fan after 4 hangs it up. And as many have seen, I have no problem calling Favre out for poor decisions and bad play. So to answer your question, I follow a player (many players of many teams, actually) and a team, the Vikings.
______________________
I guess i have no idea where you are getting this….i never said he didnt have a sub par performance week one…not sure if oyu are trying to put words in my mouth to make a point but im not follwoing…maybe use my quote to make your point cause right now you are not using what i said…
They traded their QB after he retired and thendecided he wanted to play, another diva move by him thinking he can do what he wants…Surely youve heard all the analysts and sports media say they might the right choice, they got a better QB(right now, not for the career) and Clay mathews(they used their draft pic from the trade to trade up for Clay)….are you saying Rodgers performance was the reason they went 6-10? If you want numbers and stats from favre and rodgers as well as the Defense i will gladly provide them for you…If A Rod would been there the year before it could have been us losing the SB to the pats and not the giants pulling the big upset….didnt think we could have pulled it off though….I once was a Favre fanatic as well…but then Holmgren left and Favre became the dramaqueen he is today, where it is all about him, and he tried to run the team over Sherman, no not saying he was a good coach but still there is a pecking order. and for every good play favre made he made a bad one…..his records are great…but when you have the bad records too all that shows is he is the most durable Qb ever…his longevity is impressive….But you can most definately see that whether you still like him or not, there is a reason the Jets wanted him gone too…and as a lot vikes fans i know are saying it this year….they want him gone…he’s got the best running back in the league by far(when he holds onto the ball which he is doing now) and there offense looks mediocre…..he has a great te….and yes capable receivers….and a solid defense to back him up…..

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:55:53 +0000

# Supersuckers2 says: September 30, 2010 4:09 PM
” juggernaut you and every other homer who bought into the hype thought it would be.
”
——
you just wait
_______________
Ah yes, spoken like a true Ted Thompson believer. Just keep waiting.

By: Supersuckers2

Supersuckers2 — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 16:09:04 +0000

” juggernaut you and every other homer who bought into the hype thought it would be.
”
——
you just wait

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:53:30 +0000

Super, I’m pretty sure I’ve clearly expressed how little I care what you think about who or what I root for. Especially considering the hypocrisy you have stated, saying that you can’t be a “true fan” unless you’re from the region of the team you root for, that is unless the team you root for is the Packers.
And it’s not that the Pack doesn’t try to run the ball, they do, to the tune of 25 attempts per game. They just can’t do it, they don’t have the talent (thanks Ted). That explosive offense (341 yards/ game, a whopping 13 more a game than the “struggling” Viking offense), isn’t even close to the juggernaut you and every other homer who bought into the hype thought it would be.

By: Supersuckers2

Supersuckers2 — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:53:24 +0000

” they have no running game whatsoever. ”
—
They really havent tried that much. When you are as explosive as this offense is (without kicking themselves in the sack) the run game is an afterthought. Yeah you have to sprinkle a few in there just to keep the defense on their toes a little but you don’t have to be good at it. Check out the rushing ranks for last years AFC Champion and the 2008 NFC Champions.

By: ragnar6chicken

ragnar6chicken — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:43:38 +0000

Supersuckers2 says:
September 30, 2010 1:13 PM
Stop the nonsense. The facts are Green Bay is the most talented team in the NFC (Thank you Steady Teddy) followed by Dallas, Atlanta, Philly, and Minnesota. That doesnt equate to wins as was witnessed Monday night. These are probably the NFC’s playoff teams plus whateverrag wins the west. Seeded accordingly
===========================
What is nonsense is predicting playoff teams after week 3 of the season…..especially with you predicting track record.

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:17:33 +0000

# Supersuckers2 says: September 30, 2010 1:13 PM
Stop the nonsense. The facts are Green Bay is the most talented team in the NFC (Thank you Steady Teddy) followed by Dallas, Atlanta, Philly, and Minnesota. That doesnt equate to wins as was witnessed Monday night. These are probably the NFC’s playoff teams plus whateverrag wins the west. Seeded accordingly
_________________
Ah Super, your blind homerism never ceases to amaze. How can a matter of opinion (especially that of an admitted know nothing), such as the level of talent of multiple teams, ever be stated as fact?
While GB has a very good QB along with a couple good receivers and 2 standout defenders, their O line is shaky at best, just like the pass defense. And they have no running game whatsoever.

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:07:20 +0000

# DSC says: September 30, 2010 1:48 PM
Majik, first off you don’t have a “team” like most of us….everyone on here has said you jumped ship on the Packers and followed Favre? Is that true? Sounds like you follow a Player and not a team? Not sure where you went to school but i never said he had a good game week 1? I believe i said he didnt look good week 1? Just the opposite of what you posted? So when you say i said just the opposite of what i said how am i suppose to take you seriously? Do you also forget Rodgers doesnt have the best running back in the league behind him like Favre does? But i suppose that doesnt make a difference?
_______________
First, you criticize me for saying he played bad in Week 1. Now you’re saying he didn’t look good. Which one is it, was he good or bad? Not sure where you went to school, but you can’t have it both ways.
And yes, I quit rooting for GB when the GM traded away their best player from a 13-3 team in order to go 6-10. Favre was always a favorite of mine, so I stuck with him because I refused to root for a Thompson run team, and now will remain a Viking fan after 4 hangs it up. And as many have seen, I have no problem calling Favre out for poor decisions and bad play. So to answer your question, I follow a player (many players of many teams, actually) and a team, the Vikings.

By: DSC

DSC — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:48:02 +0000

Majik, first off you don’t have a “team” like most of us….everyone on here has said you jumped ship on the Packers and followed Favre? Is that true? Sounds like you follow a Player and not a team? Not sure where you went to school but i never said he had a good game week 1? I believe i said he didnt look good week 1? Just the opposite of what you posted? So when you say i said just the opposite of what i said how am i suppose to take you seriously? Do you also forget Rodgers doesnt have the best running back in the league behind him like Favre does? But i suppose that doesnt make a difference?

By: Supersuckers2

Supersuckers2 — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:13:04 +0000

Stop the nonsense. The facts are Green Bay is the most talented team in the NFC (Thank you Steady Teddy) followed by Dallas, Atlanta, Philly, and Minnesota. That doesnt equate to wins as was witnessed Monday night. These are probably the NFC’s playoff teams plus whateverrag wins the west. Seeded accordingly

By: Ridge_Runner

Ridge_Runner — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 12:14:13 +0000

JimmySmith says:
What ever you do Packer fans, don’t start acting the Viking fans and pointing to statistics or bad calls on the field as an excuse.
To act like Vikings fans, we’d have to start blaming the loss on the refs, an NFL conspiracy, Hurricane Katrina, the Bermuda Triangle, leprechauns and the Illuminati.
I guess that is proof positive that Vikings fans live in a perpetual state of delusion. After all, didn’t they elect former WWF meathead and present-day conspiracy nutter Jesse Ventura as Governor as their state? ‘Nuff said.

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:19:35 +0000

ACS2 says:
Wow. I feel dirty admitting it, but this is actually well thought out. Maybe there’s hope for you after all.
But probably not.
_________________
Wow, I couldn’t care less what a lowlife such as yourself thinks about my post. Not only are you by far the biggest idiot on here, easily beating out the likes of Bob Nelson and crew, but you’re human garbage. Go away, you’re not even close to relevant.

By: Majik Bullet

Majik Bullet — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 10:04:44 +0000

Your bias is right there. You think Rodgers had a good game week 1. 188 yards, 2 TD’s, 2 INT’s, 73 QB rating. That’s nowhere near good, that’s bad. As for NE not blowing out the Bills, that’s to be expected of a division rivalry. How many times have we seen the Lions get blown out, then come back the next week and play the Vikes or Packers down to the wire?
You accuse me of having a “mancrush” on Favre, but what about yours for Rodgers? The guy stinks it up in Week 1, and you call it a solid performance, yet when Favre puts up similar numbers Week 1 (171 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT 71 QB rating), he was awful. Just because I call it like I see it doesn’t make me bias. I think Rodgers is a very good player. I won’t call him great, yet, because he has a tendency to fall apart with the game on the line and has yet to win a big game. But if he figures that out, he will be a great one.
Yes, you can admit the flaws of your team, but I do the same, yet I am biased and you are not? I’ve said countless times on here that Favre doesn’t look right, the Vikes O line seems to disappear at times, and Chilly is stiffly competing with McCarthy for worst coach in the league. I know you want me to be bias because it’s convenient for your argument, but you have to apply the same set of rules. If I am so blatantly biased, you would have to say the same of yourself.

By: ACS2

ACS2 — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 09:38:29 +0000

Majik Bullet says:
September 29, 2010 6:05 PM
I admit he looked great last year, but he just seems to be missing something this year. Maybe it’s the lack of a ground game, but something seems a bit off. You might not see it because of your bias, but it’s definitely there, other Pack fans I’ve talked to have noticed it as well. I’m sure he’ll shake it off, but right now he’s nowhere near MVP level.
————-
Wow. I feel dirty admitting it, but this is actually well thought out. Maybe there’s hope for you after all.
But probably not.