RE: The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (2/13/2012 11:11:14 AM)

Did they talk much about the player who was charged with sexual battery (unsure if that was the exact charge) in the Wisconsin Dells last summer?



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (2/13/2012 11:42:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Did they talk much about the player who was charged with sexual battery (unsure if that was the exact charge) in the Wisconsin Dells last summer?

That was Brandon Underwood and it turned out the women were prostitues. They were all charged and fined for some form of prostitution and soliciting prostitution.



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (2/13/2012 11:47:29 AM)

Thanks for clearing that up. I remembered that some big name players (i.e. Clay Matthews) were initially written about as if they were being charged with something, but only one ended up actually being in trouble.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (2/13/2012 11:47:48 AM)

Craig

There is some talk here that the Packers may get Cullen Jenkins back.  Have you heard that?



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (2/14/2012 8:39:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

Craig

There is some talk here that the Packers may get Cullen Jenkins back.  Have you heard that?

That's a rumor I heard as well. I really don't know what would happen if he did become available. I believe he would want to come back to GB if he was released from Philly. He would certainly be a big help with the pass rush that was so poor and allow TT to go after an OLB in the first round of the draft to help out the defense and solidify that OLB spot opposite of Matthews.

At the end of the day though, I have a feeling that Philly is going to keep Jenkins.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (2/14/2012 9:38:55 AM)

He played very well for the Eagles.

The problem is he has a mini-Peyton style contract with a big balloon payment. if he is not confident in the Eagles direction he could force them to pay him that or release him when the Eagles want to re-do his contract to lessen that hit and keep him.



Stacey King -> RE: The Packers (4/27/2012 9:59:11 AM)

According to Bill Huber of the Packer Report, the Packers are considering a trade for Browns QB Colt McCoy. Green Bay coach Mike McCarthy came away from McCoy's pro day impressed two years ago. There's now a need for an experienced West Coast backup with Matt Flynn in Seattle. The Packers could offer their sixth-rounder and/or one of their three seventh-rounders for McCoy.



thebigo -> RE: The Packers (4/27/2012 3:38:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stacey King

According to Bill Huber of the Packer Report, the Packers are considering a trade for Browns QB Colt McCoy. Green Bay coach Mike McCarthy came away from McCoy's pro day impressed two years ago. There's now a need for an experienced West Coast backup with Matt Flynn in Seattle. The Packers could offer their sixth-rounder and/or one of their three seventh-rounders for McCoy.



That's the Browns QBOTF yer talking about! [&:]



marty -> RE: The Packers (6/8/2012 8:24:16 AM)

I thought you guys and gals would find THIS article interesting:

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/blog/pat-kirwan/19282005/secondary-penalties-not-called-as-often-as-you-might-think

I was surprised to learn that despite committing PI on every play (Woodson just by himself, and then add more in when other Packers do it), the Packers were called the 3rd LEAST in PI and illegal contact in the NFL per pass play.

And on offense, with all the passing they do, GB somehow managed to get called for holds the LEAST in the NFL.

From the article:

Yesterday I looked at the frequency of holding calls against offenses, and the Green Bay Packers were the best in the NFL with one holding call for every 78.8 pass attempts. Today, they also surface as a top-five team on defense. This basically tells me that they go a long way to not beat themselves.

Do they really "go a long way to not beat themselves", or is there some sort of bias that lets them break the rules and not get flagged for it ?

I imagine Donald Driver's current celebrity status will only help them in a positive way with officials.



marty -> RE: The Packers (9/9/2012 8:10:48 PM)

The Packers better hope the regular officials that allow all their 2ndary cheating to come back before they have a game where set an NFL record for PI and holding by the 2ndary.

What's odd, is the 49er secondary got away with several pretty obvious PIs and a false start. The game would have stood out as the refs being biased a little bit for the 49ers if not for giving the Packers a TD on a punt return TD where there was one obvious block in the back and another one you could call questionable (but one that we've seen called many times). So getting that TD (having the flag picked up and incorrectly calling no block in the back) you could say either evened out the officiating or actually ended up FAVORING the Pack.

One other important note, what set up a Packer TD was a PI call on the 49ers in the end zone where if you look at the replay, the defender is looking back at the ball, doesn't interfere with his hands on the WR, and the WR runs into the defender. You could actually call OFFENSIVE PI on that play, but I don't really like that call, I think no call is the best call in that situation. But it was NOT a no call, and it essentially gave the Pack a TD with a 1st down at the 2 yard line.

I really don't think the Pack will back off on committing PI with their 2ndary because that is what they teach, and it's been successful in the past as they won a SB.



J Jeffreys -> RE: The Packers (9/9/2012 8:43:23 PM)

Vikings 1-0. Packers 0-1. Gotta enjoy it.



J Jeffreys -> RE: The Packers (9/10/2012 12:20:51 AM)

gb allowed 186 yds rushing



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (9/10/2012 10:27:21 AM)

The Packers need to develop a running game



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/10/2012 11:11:35 AM)

I sure hope they don't.



marty -> RE: The Packers (9/10/2012 11:27:14 AM)

SF can be tough to run on.

Those that say GB has a horrible defense, I think it's too early to tell if it's improved last year. SF has a very good offense, and one that surprisingly didn't take a lot of shots down the field. It also appeared to me they looked at film from GBs' lost to KC last year and did several things from there, including many sweeps to the outside.

Tramon Williams is healthy and Nick Perry, like Clay Matthews might be a terror if the Packers have the lead.

I would like to see GB lose on Thursday, and have losing eat them up for 10 days, and have them start to feel like their season is over before it even began. It was good to see them lose on Sunday, now some doubt will start creeping in.



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/10/2012 11:33:34 AM)

Marty - are your neighbors and co-workers harping on the officiating Sunday? I have one relative who is all over the replacement refs as if they caused the loss (which is hysterical because I think a lot of refs over the years have given them wins), but I'm curious to hear what the general feeling is.



thebigo -> RE: The Packers (9/10/2012 11:40:41 AM)

One of the strangest combined stats of all time. 2011 the Steelers D was ranked #1 in the NFL. 2011 the Steelers D was last in the NFL in forcing TOs.



marty -> RE: The Packers (9/10/2012 12:20:08 PM)

Good question Lynn, I just haven't talked to any fans yet, I'll probaly talk to plenty of them tomorrow.

It's interesting anyone would have that perspective as one Packers TD was the result of a questionable PI call in the endzone, and another TD was a punt return where there were 2 blocks in the back from Packers, but the refs picked up the flag and said the one they threw the flag on didn't really happen. They could have let the one go, it was borderline (but one we've seen flagged many times before, but the other one definitely was a block in the back, and should have brought the ball way back.

The refs definitely missed a few PIs that could have been called on the 49ers, and a pretty obvious false start, but giving the Packers the punt return for a TD was much bigger than any of those.

The Packers have won SO many games in the last 6 or 7 years because their defense was given a non-call on PI or holding on their 2ndary, not called at the critical juncture in the game, or on critical downs. Here the opposition got away with a few, and maybe some Packer fans think the Packers are supposed to be the team entitled to not have to play by the rules (especially when playing at home), and it's odd when the OTHER team is getting that benefit.



J Jeffreys -> RE: The Packers (9/11/2012 11:30:50 PM)

Go Packers!



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2012 8:43:34 AM)

Stop it J. You're killing me.



marty -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2012 1:38:03 PM)

Lynn

The Packer fans I talked to were NOT harping about the refs (perhaps they realize they were given a gift with the block in the back on the punt return TD), just felt the Pack were outplayed and are off to a slow start, but are confident they'll turn it around.

I think it's better long term if the BEARS win the division this year (assuming it won't be the Vikes, obviously my FIRST choice), put doubt in the Packers' minds, so they never establish any kind of dynasty or dominance over the division. Should the Vikes not win the division this year, they can win it NEXT year (after they land a big WR in the draft or in FA).

I think if the Bears go all the way, pretty good chance Peppers will retire, and Urlacher can't be far behind. The Vikes could pass them up, if those 2 are gone and the Vikes improve a few areas. The Packers are young, and it would be good to see them get rattled, the confidence lost, the injuries mount, and then FA defections (e.g., Greg Jennings might be gone next offseason).



David Levine -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2012 2:52:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty


I think if the Bears go all the way, pretty good chance Peppers will retire...


Halfway into a 6 year/84M contract?

He's also only 32 years old and has missed a total of 6 games in 10 years (none the past 4).



marty -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2012 3:07:27 PM)

Maybe I'm just hoping. I wish the Vikes had had a chance to get him. Allen on one side, Peppers on the other would have been sort of fun to watch.



Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2012 3:29:59 PM)

The packer board I read is blaming the ref's like there is no tomorrow. 



marty -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2012 3:55:22 PM)

Maybe I haven't talked to enough of the real passionate fans.

It would make sense that they would notice a rare occasion where the opposition got away with some penalties, where the Pack were flagged for obvious fouls they always commit but usually get away with, where the Pack were even charged with some ticky calls that are usually ONLY called on the opposition.

It's also likely they didn't notice they were given 1st and goal on the 1 where there really wasn't pass interference by the defender, but rather the defender was looking at the ball as the Packer WR ran into him. They may have noticed the Pack got a TD punt return where there was an obvious block in the back that was not noticed, while a ticky tack block in the back WAS noticed but the flagged was picked up and penalty said not to occur, because these refs weren't yet familiar with the bias the Pack normally recieves when it comes to officiating.

It'll be interesting if we see lots of PI calls on the Packer 2ndary on Thursday, or if they get away with PI getting a bunch of non-calls.



Page: <<   < prev  108 109 [110] 111 112   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode