SB Nation User Blog: Mitchell_M

Unacceptable

Mitchell_M — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:24:11 -0000

That's really the only word you can use to describe it. I mean, you can try to use other words like horrendous, awful, disgusting, or mind-blowingly-bad (hyphens count), but I like the way "unacceptable" rolls off the tongue.

I don't even mind losing to Tampa Bay so much as the fashion in which they lost. After all, "any given Sunday" is a mantra most NFL teams and coaches live by, so it's not inconvievable that a winless team gets its first victory against any opponent, be they great or terrible or horribly average.

What gets me is that it's the same thing over and over and over and over. I hate it when mistakes are repeated so many times. It's almost redundant to talk about how bad this team is in pass protection, special teams coverage, and playcalling.

There's actually a line in a rap song that acts as a good parallel to how I'm feeling right now. Track 17 on 'The Marshall Mathers LP' with D12 member Bizarre on the track:

I'm ripped, I'm on an acid trip/

My DJ's in a coma for lettin' the record skip/

Lettin' the record skip, lettin' the record skip/

(Damn!)

Bizarre clearly doesn't appreciate it when his disc jockey allows the song to get stuck in a certain repetitive groove. It ruins his evening, and it does not please him. In fact, he is so displeased that he wishes harm upon his disc jockey.

Well, if you substitute "song" for "2009 season" and "disc jockey" for "Coach McCarthy" and take out the whole drug thing, it sums up my (and some of your) feelings rather well.

Mike McCarthy, you are officially on the hot seat. Please find a way to get off of it next week against Dallas.

Well, This Is News

Mitchell_M — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:18:36 -0000

We knew Jason Spitz was out for Sunday with an unspecified lower back injury sustained in practice. His injury has taken a turn for the worse; Spitz was put on injured reserve yesterday.

One man who gains from this development is Scott Wells, the formerly-unseated starting center who now finds himself back with the first string. Most people believed that, while Wells is a superior technician and has more experience, his weak base and undersized stature made him an ill-fit at the center of the offensive line. Enter Jason Spitz, who is much bigger and stronger than Wells.

The move to I.R. is a shocker to me, as it leaves depth on the offensive line even thinner than before. However, if you're going to lose a starter, it may as well be at a position where you have a backup of Wells' caliber. Wells played relatively well against Minnesota (read: he was only tossed out of the way once), and Tampa Bay doesn't figure to challenge him much.

In any case, it's a shame that Spitz has to spend the rest of the year in street clothes. With all that free time, what will he do with himself? Aside from make conversation with Justin Harrell (who's been down this road before), let's hope he helps the line any way he can.

Well, La Dee Da

Mitchell_M — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 14:54:50 -0000

Well, La Dee Da

Brandon went after the NFL's policy of fining players for penalties during games, and he made some excellent points. However, in the case of Johnny Jolly's moronic headbutt, he got lucky to lose just $5k. Shoot, part of me thinks he should be docked double that for "conduct detrimental to the team."

Why Ryan Grant Isn't The Answer

Mitchell_M — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:37:48 -0000

Ryan Grant is an enigma of sorts. He is a starting running back in the NFL, yet he is widely regarded as a player with above-average skills at best. He is good at many things, but great at nothing. Even his Scouts Inc. profile from ESPN.com shows how he is simultaneously impressive and limited.

He doesn't have outstanding speed but runs well and has quickness and burst to hit the hole...He has good power to move the pile, but wouldn't be considered an explosive ball carrier...He has adequate hands as a target in the passing game but isn't dangerous in the open field after the catch.

To sum up Ryan Grant's career to this point: "meh." He doesn't have the size of Brandon Jacobs, or the elusiveness of Adrian Peterson, or the power of Michael Turner, or the agility of LaDanian Tomlinson, or the vision of Ronnie Brown, or the afterburner speed of Chris Johnson. He has those things in smaller amounts, but not enough to be considered special.

Despite his rather pedestrian profile, Grant has respectible numbers over his 3-year career: 2654 yards, 15 touchdowns, and a ypc average of 4.3. He has a reputation of being able to produce despite his physical limitations, and that reputation has dubbed him the main rusher on one of the few teams that does not employ a running-back-by-committee.

My question is this: Should Ryan Grant be the lone ball-carrier on the Packers?

In order to explore this question, we first have to look at the state of the running back position in Green Bay since 2007, when Grant burst onto the scene. In 2007, Grant was behind the likes of Brandon Jackson, Vernand Morency, and DeShawn Wynn. It took all the way until Week 8 (the Denver OT game) for Grant to establish himself in the Packer backfield, and even then it was only due to injuries to those in front of him.

In 2008, Grant was the unquestioned starter, and Jackson and Wynn were contributors. That trend continued to this season, with a minor change in personnel. DeShawn Wynn managed to find his way onto the injured reserve list (again), so former Packer Pro Bowler Ahman Green takes his place. Despite his history, Green's addition does little to threaten Grant's job security; the starting job belongs to Ryan Grant until someone is added to the roster that can compete for the position.

While it might be remiss to dismiss Grant's 2007 campaign, I contend that he remained the starter simply because nobody else was good enough to take his place. Brett Favre's 2007 season was as stellar as it was unexpected; defenses had to focus more on the pass, thus opening up running lanes. Almost anybody could have put up decent numbers on that offense so long as they could run without getting winded.

While the story of the undrafted Notre Dame product breaking onto the scene is a popular one, players don't (or at least shouldn't) get paid based on backstory. They get paid for performance; sometimes past, but more often projected. Ryan Grant's major payday during the summer of 2007 was somewhat understated compared to the media frenzy that followed the team (and still does, as we saw from Sunday). But make no mistake, Grant's new contract was based more on the past and less on the future.

From a PR standpoint, I understand why they gave Grant his money. With all the tension pervading the Green Bay fanbase before the 2008 season, the organization needed to do something that the fans could agree upon. What better way to ease that pressure than to extend the contract of a player who had just gained nearly 1,000 yards in half a season? But from a talent and, more importantly, a projected performance standpoint, I think Grant is vastly overpaid.

Let me be clear that I like Ryan Grant and want him on the team. However, I don't think he is being properly used in the offense and the offense is being held back as a result.

Obviously, there's no way I can make these claims without at least attempting to back them up with factual evidence. Therefore, I submit Exhibit A: Ryan Grant's career statistics, supplied by NFL.com. NFL.com has a wonderful feature called "Situational Stats" that breaks down a player's numbers by more in-depth metrics than just per-game or per-carry. These different metrics really show what kind of running back Grant is and why he's being mis-used.

* * *

The first one is dividing Grant's production by the number of attempts he receives. NFL running backs typically carry the ball 20 times in a game. The best way to break down a running back's production is to look at how many yards he gains on attempts 1 through 10, then how much he gains on 11 through 20, and finally anything above carry number 21.

	Attempts	Yards	Average	TDs
1-10	352	1624	4.6	9
11-20	241	992	4.1	8
21+	75	298	4.0	1

As you can see, Grant's numbers start to take a dip once he gets past his tenth carry in a given game. While I like to see coaches stick with the run throughout a game in order to get the back into a rhythm, Grant hasn't demonstrated the ability to maintain a consistent ability to get yards as the game wears on. Another way to show this is to divide Grant's yardage totals by his career number of games.

Carries	Yards per game
1-10	46.4
11-20	28.3
21+	8.5

No wonder Mike McCarthy doesn't stick with the run. Anytime Grant carries more than ten times, his yards gained for the second decuplet of carries is halved. Halved! For a back who's known for explosive gains throughout a game, it sure seems like he can't do much after his tenth attempt.

* * *

The second metric is simpler: it compares Ryan Grant's numbers in the first and second halves of games. While it's more rudimentary, it better shows how consistent (or inconsistent) a back is throughout a game.

	Attempts	Yards	Average	TDs
1st Half	367	1634	4.5	15
2nd Half	300	1278	4.3	3

Surprisingly, this breakdown doesn't show as big of a drop off in any category besides touchdowns. He has fewer yards on fewer carries in the second half, which might be a result of the trailing team focusing more on the pass to ignite the offense. By dividing his totals by his total number of games, however, the discrepancy is a bit more visible.

	Attempts/game	Yards/game
1st Half	10.8	48.1
2nd Half	8.8	37.6

The carries per half are nearly even, but the yardage is not. Again, this might be a result of the Packers being forced into passing on offense, but conventional wisdom suggests that there would be more available on the ground. Grant has not found that room in the second half, even though he's getting the same opportunities.

* * *

The third metric is not available directly on NFL.com, but I went and dug up the stats from each individual box score from 2007, 2008, and 2009 to compile the numbers. I don't have an official name for it yet, but it measures Grant's production based on what percentage of the team's carries he is responsible for. I tried to quantify how well Grant performed when he received a minority of the carries (< 50%), a significant share (51-74%), and a majority (>75%).

% of team carries	Games	Attempts	Yards	Average	TDs
< 50%	5	36	215	6.0	1
51-74%	14	247	1118	4.5	6
> 75%	16	345	1351	3.9	8

While the discrepancies in sample sizes skews the numbers somewhat, it's clear that whenever Grant is more responsible for the rushing offense, he is less effective. Workhorse backs often produce the best whenever they get the bulk of the carries from their offense, and that's how Grant has been treated. However, the numbers simply don't support the notion that Grant needs a large amount of touches to be effective. This is more obvious when you divide the statistical totals by the number of games played.

% of team carries	Games	Attempts/game	Yards/game	Average/game	TDs/game
< 50%	5	7.2	43.0	6.0	0.2
51-74%	14	19.0	86.0	4.5	0.5
> 75%	16	21.6	84.4	3.9	0.5

As you can see, whenever Grant's carries push him into the third category of team carry %, he actually gains fewer yards per game despite the additional opportunities. Conversely, whenever Grant gets minimal opportunities, he seems to do the most with them. He gains yards more efficiently with fewer carries, and he clearly starts to wear down after his twentieth attempt.

* * *

I'm no statistician, but even I'm shocked at how much the numbers back the argument. Ryan Grant simply isn't consistent enough to be the running back that McCarthy wants him to be. Is he effective? In certain situations, yes. But I don't think that he should be a 20+ carry workhorse; he simply isn't that kind of player.

Ted Simmons Speed Camp said it best in response to the question "What happened to Ryan Grant?"

The rest of the league realized he's really a complimentary back.

Shortly thereafter, ktenreb summed up Ryan Grant's football career, how he arrived in Green Bay, why he succeeded, and the circumstances that led to his big payday:

He was a part-time starter in college on a bad Notre Dame team. TT’s plan for finding a f3eature running didn’t work (surprise!), and so at the beginning of the 2007 season it looked like the team needed some depth. TT spent a 6th round pick for what he assumed would be a third-string back who had decent hands (yes, he actually did). Jacobs didn’t work out, Wynne got hurt and lacked toughness, so Grant got his shot. His timing couldn’t have been better, because by that point of the season McCarthy and Favre had abandoned any chance of running the ball (remember, we were so bad on the O-line that we were playing with a gimmick zone-blocking scheme, to cover the lack of talent) and were killing opposing defenses with a 5 WR formation. Defenses adjusted by dropping 5 and 6 into coverage in nickel and dime defenses — against those defenses, Grant was able to run. He killed opposing defenses, and when they countered with putting more men in the box, Favre went back to killing them with slants.

After that season, Grant was a hot commodity to fans, but "real" GMs knew that it was a fluke. In fairness, Thompson knew it too, but he still stubbornly sat on his hands and took no steps to bring in a truly first-rate running back. Grant held out, and Thompson ultimately was forced to give him the big payday.

During that same summer, there was something about a quarterback/GM feud in Packerland that also was prominent, the result being that the quarterback who could run the 5 WR sets was no longer around. As the season began, Grant was not 100 percent healthy as a result of his contract holdout. He seemed to get healthier as the season progressed, and he gained over 1,000 yards, but it was pretty clear that he did not have the vision that first-rate running backs possess. Still, he was the best option on the roster and he got his carries, but at the rate of under four yards-per.

This year is the same as last year, except that Grant doesn’t have an injury excuse (at least not that I know of). The offensive line has regressed from last year, but Grant still does not show that he is truly a feature back. That was the knock against him in college, and that’s why the Giants were happy to dump him for a 6th round pick. 2007 was a fluke occasioned by a perfect storm of opportunity. It won’t happen again, and Ryan Grant is not going to turn into a genuine feature back in the NFL (unless he plays a very bad team with horrible injuries at a time when its roster is decimated by the flu).

That, my friends, is a great comment that should have been turned into a FanPost. But is he right?

For what it's worth, I think so. I think Grant can be very effective as a member of a committee, instead of a lone workhorse. Remember how the Giants used Brandon Jacobs, Ahmad Bradshaw, and Derrick Ward with great success? That's the type of setup I'd like to see Grant in, with Brandon Jackson playing the role of the change-of-pace back. Then again, this is all assuming that the real problem isn't with Grant, but with his blocking, which is a very real possibility.

Man, the Thompson haters are going to have a field day with this one...and the sad thing is that they may have a point.

Worse Than A Blowout

Mitchell_M — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:18:52 -0000

They were so close. So very close. I had already written them off, and then they started coming back, and started getting some calls, and when Jennings caught that touchdown, I really started believing.

It didn't take long to crash back to reality.

I'm feeling pretty numb right now. I might do a recap tomorrow. I might not.

A bit melodramatic? Absolutely. But I'm going to wallow in my sports-self-pity for a little while.

Thank You, NFL Schedulemakers

Mitchell_M — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:50:43 -0000

Going into this week, I was tired of not having the ability to watch Green Bay play in non-nationally televised games. Except for the opening game against Chicago, the Minnesota game, and the Baltimore game later this year, the most Packer football I get to see most Sundays is during halftime shows and highlight packages on NFL.com. Considering a fair amount of my free time goes into writing for this site, not being able to see what the readers are seeing is a severe handicap.

It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't live in the New York TV market, leaving me to choose between Giants and Jets games. Don't get me wrong, both teams are fun to watch, but it feels almost...wrong.

Going into this week, I decided on a whim to check the New York teams' schedules. Originally, the Jets were scheduled for 1:00 PM and the Giants were slated to play at 4:15 PM. I had forgotten about the announcement earlier this season that the Giants game (at Philadelphia) would be moving up to 1:00 PM...and the Green Bay-Minnesota tilt was pushed to 4:15.

But it couldn't be that easy, could it? It has to be too good to be true, doesn't it? That was my attitude when I woke up this morning (at 2 AM...working third shift during the week is a bitch). I decided to check the TV schedule for the day, just to further my misery.

At 4:00 PM, CBS is showing bull riding. Awesome. On FOX, immediately following the Giants game, they're showing Minnesota at Green Bay.

...Wait, what?

Awesome.

Consider this your pre-game live thread until Brandon publishes the real game thread. Enjoy your morning, gents. I know I will...because at 4:00 PM (3:00 central)...it's on.

This video was sent to me late Friday night. I'll let the video's creator describe it: "This...

Mitchell_M — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 01:29:08 -0000

This video was sent to me late Friday night. I'll let the video's creator describe it:

"This is not your typical/generic Youtube video. I like to bring a cinematic approach to my films on sports. The video I created highlights all the events that lead Brett Favre to return to Lambeau this weekend as a Minnesota Viking."

It's a tad heavy on the metaphor at times, and it skips the whole New York excursion, but it's quite well done and I encourage anyone who sees Favre's return as a major storyline to give it a look.

The Fight For First Place: Round Two

Mitchell_M — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:51:51 -0000

Some are calling it the "Game of the Century". Others are calling it the "Hostile Homecoming". Still others are calling it "Favre-Packers v.2.0".

Me? I call it Week 9 of the NFL season.

Admittedly, our opponent this week is eerily similar to the team that handed Green Bay its second loss of the season. We know this team very well, and the only major change is the injury to their star cornerback. Therefore, the actual matchup preview will be abbreviated. Those of you who hate my lengthy previews: commence rejoycing.

MIN rushing vs. GB defense: Adrian Peterson is still scary-good, as is the offensive line that blocks for him. Phil Loadholt has been somewhat hampered by a few nagging injuries, as had Steve Hutchinson, but both seem to be back to normal now. Peterson's rushing stats have actually been underwhelming in 2009, putting up yardage totals of 85, 55, 63, and 69 in four of the last five weeks.

Green Bay gets a major boost to its rush defense compared to the week 4 version of the team now that Atari Bigby is healthy and playing. The defensive line has also been playing well; B.J. Raji and Cullen Jenkins have managed to get consistent penetration and break up plays as they develop. The linebackers, most notably A.J. Hawk, have been streaky, but I attribute that more to having a surplus of contributors (Hawk, Nick Barnett, Brandon Chillar, Aaron Kampman, and Clay Matthews) and a vast array of sub packages.

Advantage: Still Minnesota, but not as much as before.

MIN passing vs. GB defense: Well, Brett Favre is not playing the same way he did to start the season. He's thrown 79 passes in the last two games, including 50 in last week's incredibly fluky loss to Pittsburgh. He has shown the ability to make any throw at any time, including the deep ball, where he puts it in a place where only his receiver can adjust and catch the football.

Minnesota's receiving corps is somewhat of a question mark. Bernard Berrian is dealing with hamstring problems, Percy Harvin is dealing with illness/shoulder issues (isn't he always?), leaving 2009 breakout Sidney Rice and 2008 Playgirl centerfold Visanthe Shiancoe as the main passing targets. I'd include Chester Taylor on this list, but he nearly got decapitated trying to catch a wildly-overpowered bullet dropped a short screen pass that led to the Vikes' first loss.

Besides Atari Bigby's return, the most important development between Week 4 and now is Dom Capers' realization that Aaron Kampman is effective out of a three-point stance. By shifting him to end on passing downs, Capers has enormous flexibility with his nickel and dime packages. Remember when we saw Kampman in coverage on the play where Favre had 8+ seconds to find a receiver? Don't expect to see that again.

Advantage: Minnesota, if you go by the numbers, but Green Bay has closed the gap.

GB rushing vs. MIN defense: Goodbye 2008 Ryan Grant, hello 2007 Ryan Grant. After seemingly endless questions regarding his ability, his fit in Green Bay, and the deservedness of his contract, Grant had his first breakout game in seemingly forever. This doesn't mean the questions don't still stand, but at least we know he is still capable of what got him his money in the first place. Brandon Jackson takes the place of oft-injured DeShawn Wynn, and might be a better fit as a change-of-pace back.

The offensive line looks much different than it did in the previous meeting, most notably with T.J. Lang likely filling in for Chad Clifton (re-aggravated ankle injury) at LT and Scott Wells possibly taking over for Jason Spitz (back injury). Wells has a huge chip on his shoulder after losing the job to Spitz in pre-season, and Lang has something to prove as a rookie protecting Aaron Rodgers' blind side from The Mullet. Combined with the potential availability of Mark Tauscher, the offensive line is nebulous, to say the least.

Minnesota has regained the notorious run defense that made them famous earlier in the decade, coming in at 5th in the league. Pat Williams' decline has seemed to have stalled for the time being, and the Vikings have avoided major injury to crucial players in their front seven (E.J. Henderson is the only starter listed any lower than questionable).

Advantage: Minnesota by a considerable margin.

GB passing vs. MIN defense: Aaron Rodgers is surpassing more expectations than anyone could have reasonably laid out for him. Every notable stat in the NFL has Rodgers among the leaders. First in yards per attempt (9.3), second in QB rating (110.8), tied for third for fewest interceptions (2), sixth in yards per game (283.7), and eighth in completion percentage (65.8).

Donald Driver has been crucial to Rodgers' success, as the 34-year old receiver leads the team in catches (27) and yards (479), not to mention sick one-handed grabs while his other hand is held by a defender (two). Greg Jennings has been unusually quiet in the first half of the season, and James Jones had to overcome a rough start before he got back on track. The absence of Jordy Nelson and (likely) Jermichael Finley puts more pressure on Donald Lee and Jake Allen, newly-promoted off the practice squad.

Minnesota leads the league in sacks with 25. That statistic is more than enough testament to their talent against the pass. However, with Antoine Winfield dealing with a foot sprain, he may or may not be available for Sunday, and likely won't be 100% if he does play. Karl Paymah and Benny Sapp will team up to replace Winfield's presence, and it's highly likely they won't come close.

Advantage: Green Bay. Aaron Rodgers put up his best statistical game of the season despite getting sacked 8 times. If he gets that number cut by half, it will be a long day for fans of the purple squad.

Preliminary verdict: This game is easily the most important game for Green Bay of the season. I cannot imagine a way for Green Bay to remain relevant in the playoff picture if this game ends up putting the Packers at 4-3. The second tier of NFC teams is too good to risk going for a wild-card berth, especially when the team is only 1.5 games out of first place in the division.

If Green Bay wants to win, they need to do three simple things. They are, in no particular order,

Run directly at Jared Allen. Pull guards, lead with Quinn Johnson, double team him. As a smaller DE, he is less effective against the run, and if there's any hope of stifling his pass rush, it's making him tired early in the game.
Test the Minnesota safeties. With Winfield possibly out and definitely limited, Madieu Williams takes the brunt of the coverage duties. That is a weakness worth exploiting.
Wrap, swarm, and strip AP. Clay Matthews' signature play of his young career is the strip-fumble TD of Adrian Peterson. That might not happen again, but the gang tackling and proper mechanics must if the defense expects to limit Peterson's production.

All of these things must happen in order for Green Bay to win. Not one, not two, but all three. If Jared Allen gets after Rodgers, thus preventing Rodgers from throwing downfield, and Minnesota keeps the ball by using Peterson to chew up the clock, the Vikings will have this game in the bag.

I have no idea how this will play out. I'm certain it will be as entertaining as it will be hard-fought. There's no love lost between these two teams (not to mention their respective quarterbacks), and I expect nothing but the maximum effort from both.

That being said, let's get 'em.

Poll

What outcome do you see for Week 9 vs. Minnesota?

Announcement coming soon!

Mitchell_M — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:48:31 -0000

Announcement coming soon!

And no, it's not another one of me begging everyone to play nice and get along and blah blah blah. This announcement is actually somewhat worth hearing.

Stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen. Anyone who can guess the news wins a cookie.

Another Important APC Announcement

Mitchell_M — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:33:36 -0000

I had gotten into this briefly with my memo concerning flame wars before Pack-Vikes I. This week, SBNation member Robert Rence took the initiative to post his own thoughts regarding the run-up to Pack-Vikes II and the guaranteed overflow of emotion that will take place both here and at the Daily Norseman.

Basically, the moral of both stories is this: Don't be a jerk. Admittedly, that's a vague goal, as one can take several approaches towards being a jerk that makes it seem like they're not being a jerk, but face it, they're being a jerk.

So why are people still being jerks?

It's a simple problem on sports blogs to diagnose, but it's damn near impossible to treat. People are passionate about their sports teams, and when they feel that their team has been insulted, slighted, disrespected, or otherwise, they are compelled to act.

That's a weird evolution in human nature. I think any of us would be hard pressed to find someone who could sit back and ignore ignorance and venom spewing from the keyboards of trolls and ignorant fans. I consider myself fairly level-headed, but even I get sucked in sometimes. It happens, even though it shouldn't.

Obviously, I like to preach to people to simply ignore the idiocy that sometimes crops up. It won't work out that way every time. People are too proud for their own good sometimes, and they will go into a conversation with the best of intentions and be reduced to playing the part of a petty, vindictive, and overly-sensitive fool. It's unavoidable sometimes, and I recognize that.

But here's the rub: there's a very fine line between a rival fan coming onto an opponent's site and trolling. It's the grayest shade of gray, and it's very easy to confuse the former for the latter. Because of that ambiguity, there is often a backlash against rival fans, more often than not including some form of "get off our site."

This leads to a duality of sorts. On the one hand, Acme Packing Company is absolutely and always a site for Packer fans, first and foremost. Brandon and I certainly don't write posts, study box scores, break down film, or foster conversations for football fans. We do it for Packer fans. We help our fellow cheeseheads out by organizing and interpreting the vast amounts of information that are available to all of us, but for one reason or another not everyone is able to get to it until it's buried in newer information.

I don't even think it's something we do because we're necessarily better at it than others. But we do it because we want to, we're motivated to do it, and most importantly, we're available to do it. I love sorting through the latest Packer news and seeing how all the different pieces fit together to form the picture of the team. But even more than that, I love starting conversations among fellow Packer fans, even if it is a mash-up of dread from a recent disappointment, an ongoing problem, or an upcoming battle where doubt overshadows our optimism. Obviously, I prefer it when it's a celebration of a recent success and an extrapolation of future successes.

That's what Acme Packing Company is: a Packer site. But, by virtue of the hosting site, APC is not exclusively for Packer fans. As a member of the SBNation family of sites, APC is just one of 32 sites devoted to each of the NFL's franchises. Each and every one of them are open communities, not only among its own members, but for members across the vast abyss we call the Internet.

That's an overly verbose way of saying that other fans are allowed to comment on our site. Period. Anybody coming over here to get a new perspective on our team or how we view their team is (and should be) able to do so. They should not have to deal with being insulted and shunned by the users of our site, just like we should not have to deal with it on theirs.

Does this mean you have to be nice when other people come over? Not necessarily, especially if they're exhibiting the characteristics of trolling. But you have to at least be cordial so long as they're reasonable. A quick checklist for you:

Should you be proud of your team? Absolutely.

Should you be realistic? Probably, but it never hurts to exhibit some foolish optimism every once in a while.

Should you respect other teams and their fans? Definitely, even if the team itself sucks out loud.

Should you enjoy every ounce of shadenfreude you can? Oh sweet Lord, yes. I know I do.

These are things that we should all be doing. If you want to diss another team, make sure you back it up and at least try to not sound condescending or arrogant. If you want to diss another team jokingly, make sure it's funny enough to be seen as a joke. If you want to ask a fanbase for their take on something, make sure it's thoughtful and not degrading.

Will this happen all the time? Nope.

The best take on this issue is actually given by SBNation member manimal, a notorious DN member and occasional fire-starter on APC:

This will by no means stop what’s about to transpire. I really do like the fact that you posted this, but a jackass is a jackass, and reading a well thought out argument as to why being a jackass is dumb is not going to change said jackass’ perception of his jackassed self. He or she will continue in his or her jackassery for all times, no matter the anti-jackassery warnings.

Fair enough. I, for one, want to avoid being a jackass as much as possible. I save all my jackassery for my fantasy football message boards (and trust me, I've got some gems on there).

I want this site to be a platform for football conversation both among Packer fans and between fans of other teams. We all deserve credit for making this site what it is today, but that also gives us the responsibility to keep it that way.