Read here. Thanks Nik for sending us this link. This is interesting. I agree with the assessment for the most part though there were a couple things that don’t seem accurate. First of all, while we won the Super Bowl and we’re the greatest team ever (that’s disclaimed now, out of the way), I would argue that we often did NOT keep defenses honest “enough” with our run game until the last few games with James Starks. Throughout the season, part of the problem on offense was that defenses weren’t fooled much by our token running game. And much of this was due to the fact that our coach had little confidence in his weak starting RB option. In fact, I would argue (agreeing with Benoit) that it was often Rodgers’ sense (and McCarthy’s sense) of what to do on the field before and during each play that pulled us through the season offensively. I also do not associate “quickness” with James Jones. I think he gets separation at times because of his strength at the line, at times because he can run the occasional crisp route and at other times because he was just going up against a #3 CB or a LB. (I do still agree though that Jones, as annoying and untimely as his drops were, was very much an asset to this team.)
Still hard to believe we actually won the Super Bowl.
packergeeks 
March 17, 2011 at 7:15 am |
Glad to see in the article Bishop getting kudos. He arguably was the defensive MVP of the Super Bowl.
Which I still think is a great question not discussed. Almost all of the candidates have reasons as to why they shouldn’t win the award.
March 18, 2011 at 11:20 am |
Bishop did struggle early, like the article states. But it was only because he hadn’t been given a real chance prior to that. Once given the opportunity, his progress was remarkable, and a thrill to watch. I wonder who next year’s Desmond Bishop will be? Quinn Johnson, anyone? I think his blocking skills go widely unnoticed.
March 18, 2011 at 12:59 pm
May be too cliche to qualify, but I think James Starks could be that guy.
Either him or Erik Walden. He was a beast while playing, then he was injured.
March 18, 2011 at 2:54 pm
I hope you’re right about Starks, Nick. He will be an incredible asset if he can stay healthy (his running style really freaks me out). And Walden: How did I forget about him after that incredible game vs. the Bears? (I think it was the Bears, but I might be wrong) The guy was eating up real estate like Donald Trump!
Wow. 2010 really was a dream season. Highs, lows, and winning it all with a patched-up, but confident team that wouldn’t take “no” for an answer. Still makes me smile just thinking about it!
March 19, 2011 at 9:05 am
I totally agree with you about the dream season. I was just thinking last night about how crazy the the last 4-5 years have been as a Packer fan. It’s been quite an emotional roller coaster but a great ride. What a terrible, terrible year to have a lockout. With all the players coming back and the draft still to come a repeat is quite the possibility.
March 19, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Yeah it was the bears. I had the pleasure of meeting Walden; he wants nothing else than to be a Packer long term. He’s got a solid attitude (remind you of bishop?)and could be the fixture on the opposite end of Matthews
March 17, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
I kind of feel cheated about the Packers Super Bowl victory. Almost as soon as they won the game, the governor put out his budget repeair bill and the state has been in political arguments ever since. We really didn’t get a chance to savor the win and sit in the glow of the Lombardi trophy. I blame Snot Walker.
March 17, 2011 at 7:58 pm |
Well if it makes you feel better I live in Minnesota and while there isn’t as much political drama there was less celebrating the Pack overall.
March 18, 2011 at 8:59 am |
I guess it all depends on your perspective, Cindy. I agree that the Budget Repair Bill did quickly overshadow the Super Bowl, and I certainly respect your opinion. However, the passage of the bill was almost like a second Super Bowl win to many middle-class taxpayers like myself, who feel like we’ve been asked to sacrifice for many years, while public sector employees have not.
But I’ll leave it at that, since I don’t feel this is especially relevant to the original post.
March 18, 2011 at 9:37 am |
Agreed.
March 21, 2011 at 10:16 am |
Cheers to that!
March 21, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
Paul, Nick, & TGinGB,
Apparently your prescription drug program allows you your supply of stupid pills. Paul, in essence your email says we’re being screwed so public employees should get screwed as well. After we screw the public sector employees and your lot in life doesn’t change who do you think is next in line to blame.
The real question should be who’s doing the screwing?!?!?! Income was stagnant during the 2000’s so we fell behind versus cost of living increases.
The republicants gave two unprecedented tax cuts during the Bush regime and again when they got back in office. First move by Walker was to give corporations a tax break and then cry we’re poor.
If you want to know where the problem is, as always, follow the money. And the trail doesn’t lead to public sector employees!!!
March 21, 2011 at 3:51 pm
Let’s be clear on the tax deductions that Walker and the legislature passed. (all of which Walker explicitly defined in the campaign)
1. Federalizes the treatment of health savings accounts. (gives the same tax benefit to HSA’s for state income taxes that the feds give in federal income taxes….most other states have this same deduction for years)
2. Created a income tax deduction or credit for businesses that relocate to Wisconsin.
3. Created an income tax deduction for businesses that increase employment in the state. (hire new employees)
The taxpayers are not “crying poor” because of these tax breaks. All three of which do not take effect until fiscal year 2012 and beyond so they do not contribute to the current year budget deficit. The state is “crying poor” because the state budget outlook going forward is a mess.
Walker had a current fiscal year shortfall they had to close and he has a rather large deficit for the next two year budget cycle to close. All the one time money the last Gov. used to bridge budget gaps is gone. (tobacco settlement, stimulus, one time gambling deals, raiding a malpractice trust fund, etc…) The last Gov. kicked the can down the road repeatedly and not it’s time actually reform the budget. It’s a big gap to bridge and public employee unions think their budget process and interests should be exempt to reform and they think they should be immune from political push-back despite being HUGE partisan players in the political process. They are the one special interest group in the process that apparently thinks their sh-t doesn’t smell.
March 21, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Dave, the unions agreed to all the fiscal concessions that were asked of them. They agreed to similar concessions under Gov. Doyle but the Republicans, and one Democrat, voted them down.
But basically busting public unions doesn’t address any fiscal issues. Collective bargaining from an economic standpoint actually increase the efficacy of the labor market because the employer can negotiate with one entity rather than every individual employee. Also, unions help address the monopsonistic tendencies in the labor market where the employer has more market power than the employee and thus distorts the market and prevents the market from allocating resources efficiently.
Not allowing contracts to be for more than one year also basically creates a lot more work because you have to renegotiate everything every year.
I also fail to see how not allowing dues to be collected via payroll deduction or forcing unions to certify themselves via secret ballot every year addresses any fiscal issues.
Finally, if the collective bargaining provisions truly did address fiscal matters they should have been passed under budgeting procedures which require a 3/5 quorum – which was not present.
I will say that if people actually want to read about unions this book is a very good one. http://www.amazon.com/Emerging-Institutions-Twenty-First-Century-ebook/dp/B001AOFT3S/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1300757968&sr=8-2-fkmr0
It is a collection of economic studies look at unions and other labor market institutions and how they effect the economy.
March 21, 2011 at 10:08 pm
PackerBelle – Collective bargaining is a fiscal issue because of the the power and influence the unions have in the budget process on almost every level of government. They get sweat-heart deals and are allowed to protect ineffective and inefficient employment practices to their members benefit but to the detriment of the taxpayers because they deliver $ and power to politicians. We all know the many examples. (unless of course you think filing a grievance because the school district is using volunteer crossing guards is reasonable and that is just one of many examples) I just disagree that public employee unions provide efficacy to the labor market. I think they do the opposite. I’m not saying there isn’t a role for collective bargaining but too often unions abuse that power because they have the power to sit at both sides of the bargaining table when politicians they support are in office.
You are correct, eliminating the union due payroll deduction is not a fiscal issue for the state except maybe for the minimal cost the state incurs to provide the service free of charge to the union. It is politicians trying to reduce the power and influence of a special interest group that is a huge player in the political system. i.e. – collect your own dues that you use to turn around and use against anyone who doesn’t want to increase the size and scope of govt. If the union is so glorious they should have no problem collecting membership dues from their members (like every other special interest group) or getting a yearly certification vote. Is that political? I guess but when you run with the bulls and sometimes you get the horns.
March 21, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
BubbaOne,
I’m fine with you taking issue with my position, but attacking Nick and TGinGB isn’t fair. I think they were simply agreeing with me that this topic is not relevant to the original post. Having said that, I’d like to apologize for seizing on the “Snot Walker” comment, above. Although I felt it was unnecessary, I should have let it pass. After all, this is a Packers blog, and the best of its kind in my opinion!
For the record, I pay full price for my stupid pills. However, refills require just a $5 co-pay.
March 22, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
Actually, no. I was agreeing with your synopsis. Bubba – I love that you’re a Packer fan – but you honestly could not be more wrong.
The issue is simple – public workers have never paid the market price for their benefits. The gap between what they pay, and what the benefits cost is subsidized by my (yes, although I live in MN, I have WI tax exposure) and every other WI resident’s tax contributions. Walker will be changing that to reflect a closer to market rate (it is still not 100%).
As for collective bargaining – the federal government has done just fine without it. Why aren’t there protests in the streets of DC?
Finally – the underlying point here is a budget deficit. There are two ways to fix this: raise taxes, or eliminate spending. Walker is a conservative, so naturally, he chose the latter. He campaigned on it, and he executed it. I’m actually pretty confused at the surprise and outrage. The man said he would be doing it. Or did you not pay attention before blindly voting for the guy with the (D) behind his name?
But this is a Packer board. I’m through with this. Back to the Super Bowl champs.
March 22, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
Judging by the sheer number of comments on this thread – from the outside one would think Favre had come back.
Wait, shouldnt have said that name. I think Campbell has a google filter on it so he can comment every time it is uttered.