RE: The Packers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk



Message


Guest -> RE: The Packers (10/18/2011 9:07:11 AM)

Damn it Craig.  Stop being the good ambassador.  I WANT to HATE YOU!  LMAO!  Just Kidding!  (You do live in Wisconsin right???)




Todd M -> RE: The Packers (10/18/2011 9:13:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

Calm down people. Let's just let it go as it's all good. While I appreciate the kind words for me, no need to rush to my defense any longer. I'm not going to be the cause of a bunch of flame wars. Take to PMs if you want to do that.

Back to football.



You wanna be a moderator sooooooooo bad, don't you?




Todd M -> RE: The Packers (10/18/2011 9:13:49 AM)

Wasn't sure I picked a bad enough green...think I did alright. [8D]




Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (10/18/2011 10:14:03 AM)

Todd - That is a bad enough color there. Me being a Mod here would be one of the signs of the apocolypse I think.

Ed, I'm in the Twin Cities. Born and raised in SE WI though (same town as Tony Romo). I actually met a good number of posters from here several years ago.




Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (10/18/2011 10:17:41 AM)

Yep - I met Craig and I can verify he's a cool dude. I get irritated with constant references to the Packers when I'm on my Viking site, but that doesn't mean that as a person Craig isn't A-Ok.




Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (10/18/2011 10:53:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Yep - I met Craig and I can verify he's a cool dude. I get irritated with constant references to the Packers when I'm on my Viking site, but that doesn't mean that as a person Craig isn't A-Ok.

Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers Packers




Toby Stumbo -> RE: The Packers (10/18/2011 11:21:55 AM)

[&:]



<-----------------  Records be damned




John Childress -> RE: The Packers (10/18/2011 1:32:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

John, seriously, you're the guy who tells people they're too stupid to post, or unable to understand a simple concept, or not worth the time to discuss something with because they disagree with you.

Now who is childish again?

Everyone on this, or any forum, knows that when they post something they may be challenged on it. That's how internet forums work. Craig understands that and seems perfectly capable of responding to the challenge. In fact he did a better job than others who call people pigs or stupid.


Lynn never misses an opportunity to follow me around and get a dig in

Speaking of childish




Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (10/18/2011 1:44:18 PM)

It's actually been quite a while since I've mentioned that bad habit of yours but you have to admit you were begging for it here.

I'm done with this subject.




thebigo -> RE: The Packers (10/18/2011 10:24:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

Todd - That is a bad enough color there. Me being a Mod here would be one of the signs of the apocolypse I think.

Ed, I'm in the Twin Cities. Born and raised in SE WI though (same town as Tony Romo). I actually met a good number of posters from here several years ago.



Was your dentist able to put all your teeth back in? [sm=scared0001.gif]




Todd M -> RE: The Packers (10/20/2011 11:43:05 AM)

Craig - do you like gladiator movies? Or shows about people who like gladiator movies?

The Vikes fans around here like to watch tv but not share their thoughts...you mentioned a lot of threads that you wouldn't visit but neglected the lounge where one can "technically" discuss tv/music/movies.




Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (10/20/2011 2:05:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd Mallett

Craig - do you like gladiator movies? Or shows about people who like gladiator movies?

The Vikes fans around here like to watch tv but not share their thoughts...you mentioned a lot of threads that you wouldn't visit but neglected the lounge where one can "technically" discuss tv/music/movies.

I had forgotten about that one. Thanks for the reminder.




Guest -> RE: The Packers (10/23/2011 6:47:13 PM)

**** the Packers and **** Aaron Rodgers!




Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (10/24/2011 10:05:14 AM)

Packers 33 - Vikings 27

Offense
  • Rodgers - what more is there to say? It's otherwordly what he's doing.
  • Great job at the end of the game by the running game to put it away. Starks showed good burst and decision making at the end.
  • Newhouse got schooled by Allen. Eeeek!
  • Jones has really redeemed himself this season with his drop issues.

    Defense
  • Can someone tackle AP? Please? So much for that good run defense we had.
  • Woodson just baited Ponder and jumped routes.
  • The pass rush was good, had McNabb been the QB, there would have been 5-6 sacks IMO.
  • Jimmy Johnson said it best in the postgame; the Packers defense has issues and they need to get it straightened out. They are not as good as billed.
  • This is a defense that lives on the turnover and really relies on it.

    Special Teams
  • Very good returns by Cobb
  • Crosby's 58 yd FG would have been good from 68. He crushed it.
  • Every kickoff was a touchback. Keep that up young man.

    Sure was an interesting first quarter for this one. Vikes came out with a lot of emotion and they rode that for the whole first half. Third quarter the Packers offense and defense just took the wind completely out of their sails. Once again, too many big plays given up by the defense as Ponder made a good number of plays when he had to. Good to have the bye week coming up especially for Woodson, Jennings and Matthews so those dings can get fully healed.




  • John Childress -> RE: The Packers (10/24/2011 10:14:35 AM)

    Craig

    Do you believe the Clay HGH stories?

    If not, why has he dropped from Lawrence Taylor-like down to ordinary?




    Guest -> RE: The Packers (10/24/2011 10:25:48 AM)

    quote:

    Third quarter the Packers offense and defense just took the wind completely out of their sails.


    Really?  What happened in the 4th quarter then?  If the Vikes get one more stop in the 4th quarter who knows what happens? 

    The Pack makes good half time adjustments but I thought the 4th quarter showed a rookie QB with a little bit of poise almost bringing a team back from a 16 point deficit.

    The Packer defense is weak.  how many weeks in a row have they given up over 400 yards?  The Vikings actually out-gained the Packers in this one.

    Cobb?  Nice muff on the punt!

    Woodson?  Nice picks, but once again he was seen mugging receivers and not being flagged.

    A very inept Viking team in almost complete disarray played the Packers damn near even up with a depleted back 7 (non-existant), a rookie qb making his first start, no true Wide Receivers and some horrible special teams play.  The Packers have had a somewhat soft schedule so far, and although 7-0 if that defense doesn't pick it up, they will be in a whole lot of trouble later in the season.  Yes, Rodgers is a stud...probably the best QB in the game right now.....but without some better defensive play the season ends up in disappointment.

    For Vikings fans we know our season is all but over.  What will be nice to see is the Packers lose in the playoffs and then the fans making all the excuses in the world about how the ref's cost them.....It is inevitable!




    Guest -> RE: The Packers (10/24/2011 10:27:58 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: John Childress

    Craig

    Do you believe the Clay HGH stories?

    If not, why has he dropped from Lawrence Taylor-like down to ordinary?


    JC I have to agree with you on this one.  Clay doesn't have the impact on the field he had last season...its clearly evident.  Packer fans will say its because teams game plan for Clay, but didn't they game plan for him last year as well????? 




    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (10/24/2011 11:20:56 AM)

    Well, you won't see me complain about officiating. A call is a call, same with a non-call. I've always felt that the player puts himself in the bad position where a penalty may get called, he deserves it. Good teams should overcome penalties.

    How could I have forgotten about the muffed punt! Thanks for pointing that out Ed. Rookie's gotta catch those or get the hell out of the way.

    As for Clay, I don't believe the HGH stories. The sacks are starting to come back around (2 in the last 2 weeks) as he's practiced more. He's not practiced for weeks due to a quad injury. Even then he's getting plenty of hurries (leads the league in those and knockdowns) and has noticably been far better against the run as in seasons past. He's being dropped back into coverage more often as well and is simply becoming more than just a pass-rusher.

    Sacks are sexy and an easy barameter to gauge a player who's been known to get them. I see a player who's better overall on defense. Sacks will come.

    To say he's ordinary and is not having an impact is disingenuous, IMO.




    John Childress -> RE: The Packers (10/24/2011 11:29:10 AM)

    I have only seen two Packer games completely but in neither game did he look dominant like he did last year.

    Now if you say it is because he is defending the run more I will defer to you .  Of course none of the Pack defended the run yesterday.

    However, he certainly has looked like an ordinary LB in the two games I watched.




    John Childress -> RE: The Packers (10/24/2011 11:43:14 AM)

    Not only are the sacks down but so are the tackles

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/12438/clay-matthews

    From over 4 solo tackles per game to under 2

    Sacks about 25% of last year

    No forced fumbles

    etc.


    I think you calling me disingenuous is just a tad off base.

    I was the one Vikings fan defending Clay last year against the rumors

    But his clear dropoff in play this year makes me question my loyalty to him




    Andy Lowe -> RE: The Packers (10/24/2011 12:35:59 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: John Childress

    Not only are the sacks down but so are the tackles

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/12438/clay-matthews

    From over 4 solo tackles per game to under 2

    Sacks about 25% of last year

    No forced fumbles

    etc.


    I think you calling me disingenuous is just a tad off base.

    I was the one Vikings fan defending Clay last year against the rumors

    But his clear dropoff in play this year makes me question my loyalty to him


    Don't forget he played hurt for most of the year last year.

    And now healthy, he's putting up a shell of the stats from last year.

    He looks to me like what he was expected to be. A step too slow, and not strong enough beat good lineman.

    He made a nice sack yesterday, but Loadholt makes a lot of guys look good.

    I did see him literally get thrown back by a rag doll on a couple plays.




    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (10/24/2011 1:33:22 PM)

    This isn't the same Packers' defense from previous years either, it's worse overall. Plus, he hasn't been healthy all season, not sure where you're getting that from. He's been extremely limited in practice time for the past 5-6 weeks (usually not practicing at all). It was only this past week where he's been able to practice on a full-time basis. Given his lack of practice I consider his season so far going just fine.

    We'll see how it all turns out. We're all seeing things from a different perspective (Viking fan vs Packer fan) so we'll leave it at that as we're each biased towards him.

    Just don't go getting your undies in a bundle if he doesn't have a sack next week. (He's on a bye) [8D]




    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (11/7/2011 9:25:13 AM)

    Packers 45 - Chargers 38

    Offense
  • Rodgers - 8 games 24 TDs, 3 INTs. Wow. The guy needs to throw the ball away sometimes though. That said, he made some huge runs yesterday.
  • Starks is looking better and better at RB. He's hitting the hole faster than Grant and doesn't go down with the first hit.
  • Ummm, where was the pass protection?
  • Jordy Nelson has clearly become the #2 WR. What a solid, solid overall WR. Runs short, over the middle, can stretch the field and is a very good blocking WR.

    Defense
  • Peprah's INT for a TD was really a great return.
  • This unit is just a mess. No pass rush from anyone until the final SD drive really. Tolbert just ran over the D. Other than the 3 INTs the pass defense was terrible. I'm not sure what the issues are. Do the Pack miss Jenkins that much? Has Capers regressed in his play calling? Secondary coaches suck? Was missing camp that big of an issue for this unit? There's flashes of great play but then the other 80% of the time it's junk. Can't just win shootouts each week.

    Special Teams
  • Good job returning kicks and punts.
  • Kickoff coverage was poor.
  • Catch that ball Jordy, don't just try and slap it out of bounds. Made the game a lot closer than it should have been.

    Well, a win on the road is always a good thing. This won't be an undefeated season. No way. Not even going to entertain the thought. The offense is going to have an off game or the defense simply will lose one.




  • thebigo -> RE: The Packers (11/7/2011 8:27:41 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Andy Lowe

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: John Childress

    Not only are the sacks down but so are the tackles

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/id/12438/clay-matthews

    From over 4 solo tackles per game to under 2

    Sacks about 25% of last year

    No forced fumbles

    etc.


    I think you calling me disingenuous is just a tad off base.

    I was the one Vikings fan defending Clay last year against the rumors

    But his clear dropoff in play this year makes me question my loyalty to him


    Don't forget he played hurt for most of the year last year.

    And now healthy, he's putting up a shell of the stats from last year.

    He looks to me like what he was expected to be. A step too slow, and not strong enough beat good lineman.

    He made a nice sack yesterday, but Loadholt makes a lot of guys look good.

    I did see him literally get thrown back by a rag doll on a couple plays.


    Ann or Andy?




    marty -> RE: The Packers (11/9/2011 8:27:32 AM)

    Woodson commits PI on nearly every play, and should be called on it. He's constantly cheating, and not playing according the rules. He has NO regard for the PI and holding rules. Many Packer games have ended where a DB got away with what Woodson actually got called on, on a 3rd down, late in the SD game. Usually, a Packer will commit obvious PI, come away from the play celebrating, the refs make it a no call, and the Packers get the ball back to end the game.

    On the first Packer INT for a TD, Woodson pushed Gates out of his route, pushed him to the right which enable Woodson to go to his left sooner, allowing him to tip a pass that ended up being intercepted for a TD. That should have been PI, and called back, NOT 7 points for the Pack.

    But while the refs also missed 2 other good PIs from the Pack, they also missed one from Jammer, and there were 2 holds on Matthews that easily could have been called. I thought the refs were pretty on in this game, maybe a slight leaning towards SD. The game didn't appeared to be 'swayed' either way.

    -------------------------------------------

    I think one of the keys to SD success was picking up blitzes, they were INCREDIBLE at it. I think the Packers plan on blitzing more the rest of the season, much like they did at the end of the year last year, except I think it will be MUCH more successful in other games than it was against SD.

    Minnesota needs to pick up the blitzes like SD, and also have plenty of screens ready. I don't think the Vikes will do either of these things, so the Pack will get turnovers. I think the Pack will expect NO deep balls, and no out passes, so they'll just play more MAN coverage, 'be physical' (commit PI and hope only about half of them are called), and jump on some of the short passes.

    On offense, Rodgers continues excellent play. Nelson, Jennings and Finley are total studs, Cobb might be a future stud, and Driver and Jones are solid off the bench. The OL looked a little weaker, maybe missing Clifton, but they were on the road against a SD team that just lost a tough game. I think the OL will do better against the Vikes, but the Vikes coming off a bye might make it interesting, especially JA. It will be to the Packers advantage to have a slow, slick, or muddy field, unless it's REALLY bad which could take away their passing advantage.




    Page: <<   < prev  100 101 [102] 103 104   next >   >>



    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode