Barry gone, Calhoun gone.

Badgers, Packers, Mallards. Paddling, running, golfing. And bikes!

Which Wisconsin teams will be winners next year?

UW football
7
50%
Packers
0
No votes
Both
2
14%
Neither
5
36%
 
Total votes: 14

massimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Barry gone, Calhoun gone.

Postby massimo » Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:09 pm

Sherman gone. Favre gone?

Football in Wisconsin is entering some uncharted territory, for sure. Will anybody out there predict winning seasons for either team next year? I'm not so sure.

jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Postby jjoyce » Tue Jan 10, 2006 7:07 pm

I'm skeptical about Bielema, but encouraged by rumors about his coaching staff. He's well respected by his peers, which means good coaches will work hard for him. I think the atmosphere around Camp Randall will change as the new breed functions without ties to past glory. These new guys will want to carve out something for themselves, and that might mean going beyond conference championships.

We'll see.

It's too bad about Calhoun. I like him a lot, especially after touchdowns when he humbly hands the ball to the nearest referee.

Marvell
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7016
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: At one with time and space

Re: Barry gone, Calhoun gone.

Postby Marvell » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:09 pm

massimo wrote: Will anybody out there predict winning seasons for either team next year?


Yeah, sure - I'll do it.

Stocco is the real deal - he's definitely become the best Badger quarterback since Bevell - maybe since VanderKellen. I think he's progressed to the point where, even with a green receiving corps, he'll still be effective enough to win a majority of home Big Ten games. With a road win and no stumbles in the pre-conference schedule you're looking at a winning season and some kind of bowl action as the proverbial slam dunk.

The Packers scenario is a little more precarious, but hear me out - they either make Bates the head coach or keep him on as defensive coordinator. They bring in free agents on defense - experienced players, especially in the defensive backfield, and use the draft picks on playmakers. Offense, defense - whoever is available and has the greatest potential to pull of spectacular shit, that's who you draft.

Favre is gone - if not this year, the next. It's time to find the new Favre, or Favre's - the kind of player that gets the whole country talking about Green Bay. Unlike some, I don't think it has to be a quarterback - as has been pointed out, Chicago won with Jim McMahon - a good but certainly not great quarterback. But they did have Walter Payton, and Mike Singletary - two players who dominated their positions in the same kind of way that Favre has dominated his.

The Packer didn't win the SuperBowl on the strength of Brett Favre's arm, after all - they won it on Desmond Howard's kick returning, and on Reggie's hump move. Favre put them in the position to win, but it was the quality of the surrounding cast that made the Pack champions.

Javon Walker has the potential to be that kind of player, if his injuries don't set him back, but he's really it among the current Packers. Still, there's enough returning talent to form the nucleus of a good team - but Thompson needs to be ruthless in his cuts. I say out of Fisher, Green and Davenport you maybe keep one (Davenport). Bubba Franks should be gone; so should Ferguson.

If Thompson is good at his job and all the chips fall right I think the Packers can bounce back and go 9-7, maybe even 10-6. They'll be playing the NFC West and AFC East, divisions bottom heavy with chum. Hopefully the Vikings and Detroit disarray will continue, giving the Pack a plethora of potential patsies.

tibor
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:55 am

Postby tibor » Wed Jan 11, 2006 8:54 am

I agree with Marvell almost exactly, except that I think the Badgers will do better next year unless a lot goes wrong.

Losing Calhoun hurts a lot, and I agree with JJoyce that one of the best things about the guy is his humility and class. But I think a Paul Chryst offense doesn't need a 45-touches-a-game back like a Brian White offense does, and because of that, I think they'll be OK next year. Yes, there will be a big drop off at that position, but hey - we made it to a bowl game with Anthony Davis at tailback, and he was "hurt" much of that season.

The defense should get a lot better with returners at DLine and the secondary positions, and they should be good enough to keep Bucky in just about every game they play next year.

I think at worst, it's a .500 record for both teams next year. I think the Packers have the most potential to surprise, IF they don't draft dumb.

massimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Postby massimo » Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:21 pm

Well, I'm certainly not going to argue with any of you, I's just askin'. I think I agree with tibor, mostly, that at worst, Badger football will go .500.

The Pack, though? I guess we'll have to wait and see if Favre will be around, though it is true that a QB is not absolutely necessary to put together a successful season-- I guess I just can't see the Pack winning more games than they lose with a new head coach and QB. I'd be surprised, anyway, pleasantly so.

Smartypants
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 9:45 am
Location: In an office somewhere....
Contact:

Postby Smartypants » Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:23 pm

massimo wrote:The Pack, though? I guess we'll have to wait and see if Favre will be around, though it is true that a QB is not absolutely necessary to put together a successful season-- I guess I just can't see the Pack winning more games than they lose with a new head coach and QB. I'd be surprised, anyway, pleasantly so.


Wishful thinking, hope, eternal optimism. Ha. You're right massimo, the Packers are going to suck for years...Marvell, stick to music and movies man, you sound like a Cubs fan. You've got more contortions in that scenario than the Jim Rose Circus.

SIZZAW
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1862
Joined: Tue Jan 21, 2003 6:24 pm
Location: Aqui
Contact:

Postby SIZZAW » Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:51 pm

The Pack won't be as horrible as everyone is surmising. If Favre retires, well, there goes 28 interceptions, several of which cost them victories this year. The defense is much better than anyone thought it could be, and if they get some decent draft picks and free agents it could get better next year.

The offense really stunk this year, but I hope they don't address it in the draft. Defense wins it in the end. In the North it doesn't take much to stop the powerhouse offenses of Chicago or Detroit.

It'll be interesting at the very least to see what transpires.

massimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Postby massimo » Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:01 pm

Smartypants wrote:Wishful thinking, hope, eternal optimism. Ha. You're right massimo, the Packers are going to suck for years...Marvell, stick to music and movies man, you sound like a Cubs fan. You've got more contortions in that scenario than the Jim Rose Circus.

Well, like you Smartypants, I'm a Bears fan, but I personally take no joy in seeing the Packers lose like this. I've really enjoyed watching the Pack with Favre at QB, and I'll be sad to see him go. Just for sentimental reasons, though, I think the team could definitely do without those 28 interceptions.

As Bears fans, though, we definitely know what it feels like to suck for a couple decades. It's amazing to think that Superbowl 40 is this year-- to a Bears fan, 20 seems like yesterday.

tibor
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 840
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:55 am

Postby tibor » Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:27 pm

SIZZAW wrote:The offense really stunk this year, but I hope they don't address it in the draft. Defense wins it in the end.


Agreed. I saw rumors someplace they want Lendale White. I don't like that pick at all - he COULD be a good back, but I'd much rather have them take defensive studs with their first three picks.

One other thing a lot of people forget is that the Pack's first rounder from last year didn't contribute at all to the play on the field. Not many teams can say that - 20/20 hindsight says that was dumb, but at the time, they thought they could get away with it.

Smartypants
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 9:45 am
Location: In an office somewhere....
Contact:

Postby Smartypants » Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:35 pm

massimo wrote:
Smartypants wrote:Wishful thinking, hope, eternal optimism. Ha. You're right massimo, the Packers are going to suck for years...Marvell, stick to music and movies man, you sound like a Cubs fan. You've got more contortions in that scenario than the Jim Rose Circus.

Well, like you Smartypants, I'm a Bears fan, but I personally take no joy in seeing the Packers lose like this. I've really enjoyed watching the Pack with Favre at QB, and I'll be sad to see him go. Just for sentimental reasons, though, I think the team could definitely do without those 28 interceptions.


Damn, don't make me question your credentials son. Either you have consumed one too many cheese wheels or possibly you have had too much brandy. No self-respecting Bears fan is sad to see Favre go, unless you meant you're sad to see him go because of foregone opportunities for the Bears D-backs.

Now is not the time for pity, now is the time to bask in the glory of Navy Blue and Burnt Orange.

massimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Postby massimo » Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:53 pm

Smartypants wrote:Damn, don't make me question your credentials son. Either you have consumed one too many cheese wheels or possibly you have had too much brandy. No self-respecting Bears fan is sad to see Favre go, unless you meant you're sad to see him go because of foregone opportunities for the Bears D-backs.

Now is not the time for pity, now is the time to bask in the glory of Navy Blue and Burnt Orange.

You may be right about my consumption of cheese wheels and brandy-- it's hard to live in Madison, have friends who all root for the Packers, and not grow attached in some regard. When the Pack plays, I root for them. When the Bears play, I root for them. When the Pack plays the Bears, no question-- I want to see the Packers get stomped.

And believe me, I'm not spending time pitying the Packers. I like Brett Favre, though, he's (or maybe "he was") a lot of fun to watch. You're right, though, it was fun to see him get run over by the freight train that is the Bears' defense.

However, I'm usually reluctant to rub people's noses in their team's failures, because a) my teams are usually the suckage (cubs, bears, etc.), and b) I don't get off on the tribalism of sports fandom.

Smartypants
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 9:45 am
Location: In an office somewhere....
Contact:

Postby Smartypants » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:21 pm

massimo wrote:You may be right about my consumption of cheese wheels and brandy-- it's hard to live in Madison, have friends who all root for the Packers, and not grow attached in some regard.

Funny, it's had the exact opposite effect on me.

massimo wrote: When the Pack plays, I root for them.

There's something just wrong about that.

massimo wrote:I want to see the Packers get stomped.

That's more like it!

massimo wrote:However, I'm usually reluctant to rub people's noses in their team's failures, because a) my teams are usually the suckage (cubs, bears, etc.), and b) I don't get off on the tribalism of sports fandom.

Wait, isn't this the whole point? Trash talking is the sacred right of the sports fan. What fun is it if you can't trumpet victories and losses of huge men making bazillions for playing a game?

I just don't take it very seriously. Unlike Packers fans who seem to think that using the term "we" means that they are somehow actually involved in the outcome of the game.

Alright, I'll stop now because I fear I've gone beyond obnoxious.

massimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Postby massimo » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:31 pm

Smartypants wrote:Unlike Packers fans who seem to think that using the term "we" means that they are somehow actually involved in the outcome of the game.

So you're telling me you don't listen to AM 670 The Score at all? Just turn it on for a bit and listen to some callers-- "Yeah, uh Pappy? We're gonna staamp dose Panters dis weekend, no doubt." Or, however the hell one would write that awful accent.

Smartypants
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1524
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 9:45 am
Location: In an office somewhere....
Contact:

Postby Smartypants » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:37 pm

massimo wrote:
Smartypants wrote:Unlike Packers fans who seem to think that using the term "we" means that they are somehow actually involved in the outcome of the game.

So you're telling me you don't listen to AM 670 The Score at all? Just turn it on for a bit and listen to some callers-- "Yeah, uh Pappy? We're gonna staamp dose Panters dis weekend, no doubt." Or, however the hell one would write that awful accent.


Who you crappin? massimo. I love that shit. I never claimed to be rational about this fan business.

massimo
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1792
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 5:52 pm
Location: Madison

Postby massimo » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:47 pm

Yeah, I'm a big fan of Boers and Bernstein. I listen to them online most days at work.


Return to “Sports, Recreation & Biking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests