RE: The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (12/4/2012 12:41:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Doesn't change my point. They played horribly in the Seattle game, allowed Indianapolis to comeback after being up by 18 (or was it 21) points, and only had two wins coming into this game. They were playing AT Houston, which at the time was undefeated.

It was not a bit of an insult to call them the underdogs.

You were right!

The Packers are simply not that good.

Wade Wilson
Tommy Kramer

Just about any Vikings starting QB could have easily led this team over the Pack Sunday

except Ponderrific



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/4/2012 12:49:47 PM)

My Christmas wish is that the Packers don't win another game this season (or heck, let's say next either) and that the Vikings win out - all the way through the post season. Does anyone have any pull with the football gods?



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/4/2012 12:50:28 PM)

Rhetorical question of course. If any of us actually had an influence we wouldn't be so long-suffering.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (12/4/2012 1:46:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

My Christmas wish is that the Packers don't win another game this season (or heck, let's say next either) and that the Vikings win out - all the way through the post season. Does anyone have any pull with the football gods?


Won't that make for an unhappy household for you?

What does Mr. Lynn say about that?!!!



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/4/2012 6:49:07 PM)

It's his turn to be unhappy. Everything football has gone his way for quite a while (between the Badgers going to the Rose Bowl for the third year in a row and the Packers ... he's had his turn).



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/9/2012 11:22:52 PM)

The refs keep underestimating the Packers ability to win in crunchtime.

Since it's been forever since Detroit has won in Lambau, I thought for the 1st half, the refs seemed to be favoring the Lions, maybe making that possible.

The Lions were making it a close game, when in the 4th quarter the refs let the a Packers offensive lineman get away with a really bad hold, followed by 5 or 6 plays by the Packers 2ndary, ANY of which could have been called PI. Then when the Packers moved to a comfortable 10 point lead and very little time on the clock, the refs flag a Packer for PI on a play that wasn't much PI, it even could have been offensive interference by Calvin.

I think if the refs would have just called all 5 (or 6) of those PIs, the Packers probably STILL would have won. Detroit probably would have found a way to lose. I just wish the refs would stop underestimating the Pack, and just call the obvious fouls.



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/10/2012 8:05:59 AM)

I don't know about the ones you specifically mentioned Marty, but as I was watching the game (and this season) my thought was that it was gratifying that this season we seem to finally be seeing the Packers getting called for penalties that every other team gets called for. They used to get away with so much crap it was unbelievable, but for some reason the refs are actually treating them like the other 31 teams - for the most part.



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/10/2012 8:26:16 AM)

They ARE getting called for a lot more holds on their OL, and more calls on their 2ndary.

I think their OL has the reputation as being poor, and there are more young players in their 2ndary that are getting flagged. But I think that was MUCH more true with the replacement officials, the ones who understood the rules and weren't going to play favorites to a team that gets away with murder bending the rules.

Although this is true, and there WAS a season a few years back where the Pack led the league in penalties on their 2ndary, they still play every pass play with disregard to the PI rules, and got away with a whole bunch of them in last nights' game, and it killed the Lions' chances. Even ONE of them getting called, and it's quite possible it changes the whole flow for Stafford, and it's possible he gets on a roll. It's also quite possible he doesn't, we'll just never know. He just wasn't given a fair shot with the cheating the Packers got away with. I think the refs are underestimating the Packers a little bit.

The Vikes got away with some contact yesterday, although the Bears WR were also getting with it. Jefferson got away with a few (one over the back), and Robinson got away with one. That is a GOOD thing, maybe they are finally learning it's o.k. to make contact, there is a chance you might get away one. The Vikes in the past have played with so little contact, they've gotten flags on defenders that didn't even make contact, and that still happens at times.



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/11/2012 8:57:22 AM)

What they said in the Detroit game was, 'were taking away your chance of winning by letting the Packers get 5 PI non calls, but giving you the illusion that you have a chance once the game is pretty much over (it also gives people the feeling that the game really wasn't 'swayed') by giving you a call when your still down by 10, you never really had a chance to win the game. We preferred the Packers cover the spread, and were going to make sure the Pack won the game'.



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/18/2012 12:20:25 AM)

I read a report stating that more money was bet on the Packers, and if that's true, the refs helped the bettors. I was hoping that research would prove to be the opposite, as there is some [&o] evidence of a 'sway'.

IF the line had changed and showed lots of betting on the Bears, then I would have expected the refs might help the Pack. I was surprised to find the line hadn't moved, and was surprised to read that more bettors went with GB, though not enough to move the spread.

Looking at the tape of Packers/Bears, here's just a few things I noticed (Walter Anderson officiating crew):

* Early in the game, on a 3rd and 7, Sam Shields gets away with early contact, hitting Jeffery in the back before the ball gets there, no flag.

*In the 2nd quarter, Packer LBer Brad Jones gets away grabbing Forte twice, obvious PI not called

*James Jones gets away with a pushoff on his 1st TD.

*Safety called for PI on Finley in endzone, I agree with the PI, but it should have been offsetting as Finley also committed it, actually did it better than the defender. The flag was thrown from far away, and Aikmann commented on that.

* The announcers missed this: On 3rd and 10, 7:09 on the clock, Packers got away with really obvious PI on the Bears TE, the defender drove himself right into the Bears TE well after 5 yards, the ball was thrown to a WR later in the play, incomplete pass

*It was a lame call of late hit on the QB, the call on Peppers, don't agree with that one at all, Peppers was airborne, didn't lead with the helmet, Rodgers still had the ball when Peppers went airborne. The announcers didn't agree with the call either. This bad call is the one (of quite a few) I was closest to agreeing with, because it is usually called, but I never like those sorts of calls.

*2:51 left in the game, Shields commits PI first on Jeffery, then Jeffery pushed off. I agree with the PI call on Jeffery because he did pushoff, but Shields committed PI first, should have been offsetting fouls

*2:07 left in the game, Shields gets away with first holding Jeffery, then a whole bunch of contact, no flag.

I'd agree with anybody that said the Packers are still the better team, and that Rodgers is a much better QB than Cutler. But it can't be overlooked that the refs helped the Packers a great deal, almost as though the game were at Lambau. I think the Packers probably win the game without any help from the official, we'll just never know. Maybe the Packer players are just more likeable to the refs than the Bear players ?



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/23/2012 11:07:48 PM)

I think if the Vikes were to get 7 no calls, along with a call on Ponder that gets flagged (liked the one called on Peppers against GB), while the other team got ZERO, I think the Vikes could pretty much go on the road and beat ANY team in the NFL in such a scenario.

To help the Vikes win next week, to make it a better chance the Vikes get fair officiating, encourage everyone you know to bet the Pack.

If I were the Vikes this week, I would encourage the WRs to start complaining the 1st time a Packer defender grabbed, held or interfered with a WR, from the 1st time it happened, until the end of the game. Also, tell the WRs to NOT pushoff, so it's clear the Packer DBs are commiting a penalty, and NOT the Vikes WR. The only problem with that, is if you don't push after you're being held, it gives the defender an advantage to get to the ball quicker. But I think the Vikes should give that up to make a point, and that point COULD make a difference the following week should the Vikes still win and make the playoffs.

In front of a national audience, the viewers need to know:

The Packers benefit from an unfair advantage of making contact with their 2ndary and getting a large number of no calls on those plays !

One thing the Packers HAVE gotten flagged a lot on this year, is holding on the OL. They must have a reputation for it because they are flagged for it, even when it appears to be not much of a hold. The impressive thing about Rodgers is he can many times dig his way back to a 1st down after a holding call.

But the 2ndary play, the non calls are more significant to the outcome of games.



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/24/2012 5:10:47 PM)

I think the Giants laid out a good plan on how to beat the Pack.

I think the Vikes should get some good hits on Cobb and Finley, they'll drop passes if you can hit them early. With Jennings, just don't let him get YAC. Jones, don't let him get away with pushing off. Jones is sometimes a go to guy for Rodgers this year, and he'll throw it to him even he's well covered. This is where a DB needs to get physical and knock the ball away, or if the CB or a safety can get a good jump, anticipate and get an INT on a ball thrown to Jones. Jones has the least speed of the Packer WRs, but he still has good speed, they are just loaded at WR, with guys that play different styles.

The Vikes don't need any help running the ball, they did it well against the Pack. I'm hoping Ponder plays like he did against the 49ers, and I'm also hoping they go deep a few times to Wright or even Aromashadu early in the game. Make Rodgers think he needs to go deep, Rodgers likes to throw deep, and usually does right away after the other team throws deep. Get Rodgers throwing deep, with the way the Vikes are playing in the 2ndary, will likely lead to picks or sacks.

I'm REALLY hoping the Vikes once again feel that mojo of a defensive TD, that I think they got it on their bye week of watching the Bears getting some many on film (the Vikes were not really known to get INTS, much less SCORE after one !). I think the Vikes saw all those Bears defensive TDs, and thought they (the Vikes) were going to do it against the Bears, but the opportunities never came as Lovie changed a few things up on both sides of the ball, as the Vikes lost at Chicago.

I'm hoping the defensive and Ponder win the game on Sunday, and that AD will carry them at Lameblow the next week. I think if AD has to do too much this week, they'll key on him in Lameblow, and the Vikes will be in trouble with Ponder passing there. It's just the way I envision the Vikes winning both games, I don't think the same formula will work well both times.



Steve Lentz -> RE: The Packers (12/24/2012 6:25:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

I think the Giants laid out a good plan on how to beat the Pack.

I think the Vikes should get some good hits on Cobb and Finley, they'll drop passes if you can hit them early. With Jennings, just don't let him get YAC. Jones, don't let him get away with pushing off. Jones is sometimes a go to guy for Rodgers this year, and he'll throw it to him even he's well covered. This is where a DB needs to get physical and knock the ball away, or if the CB or a safety can get a good jump, anticipate and get an INT on a ball thrown to Jones. Jones has the least speed of the Packer WRs, but he still has good speed, they are just loaded at WR, with guys that play different styles.

The Vikes don't need any help running the ball, they did it well against the Pack. I'm hoping Ponder plays like he did against the 49ers, and I'm also hoping they go deep a few times to Wright or even Aromashadu early in the game. Make Rodgers think he needs to go deep, Rodgers likes to throw deep, and usually does right away after the other team throws deep. Get Rodgers throwing deep, with the way the Vikes are playing in the 2ndary, will likely lead to picks or sacks.

I'm REALLY hoping the Vikes once again feel that mojo of a defensive TD, that I think they got it on their bye week of watching the Bears getting some many on film (the Vikes were not really known to get INTS, much less SCORE after one !). I think the Vikes saw all those Bears defensive TDs, and thought they (the Vikes) were going to do it against the Bears, but the opportunities never came as Lovie changed a few things up on both sides of the ball, as the Vikes lost at Chicago.

I'm hoping the defensive and Ponder win the game on Sunday, and that AD will carry them at Lameblow the next week. I think if AD has to do too much this week, they'll key on him in Lameblow, and the Vikes will be in trouble with Ponder passing there. It's just the way I envision the Vikes winning both games, I don't think the same formula will work well both times.


You left out Jordy Nelson.



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/24/2012 7:47:52 PM)

Nelson has been inactive the last 3 games, so I would recommend, whoever it was that knocked him out the last time, knock him out again.



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/25/2012 9:41:13 PM)

GB/Min line started at 3 1/2, many places now have it at 3. NOT GOOD ! Encourage Packer fans and others to start betting on the Pack. I do NOT want a game where the officials play a large role in assisting the Pack. I was thinking the refs might favor the Vikes in this one (but not if there is heavy betting on Minnesota), and then favor the Pack at home the following week. I would rather have the Vikes lose by 40 points with unbiased officiating then have them lose by 1 point, or by ANY number of points with biased officiating in favor of the Pack.

I hope there isn't some type of memo or statement (to the refs) like:

"Look, we really want the Pack to win this one, but it's going to be a challenge for you to 'sway' the game as the Vikes have a very loud stadium, but there will be plenty of Packer fans there as well. The Packers OL is playing poorly, and you need to take away the agression of the Vikes DL, so call any movement before the snap against them, even if a Packer OL moves. Be ready to call any hits on Rodgers a penalty and let the Packers get away with contact on Ponder, unless you ABSOLUTELY have to call it to appear fair.

You must allow the Packer DBs to have lots of contact, let them get away with hits before the ball gets there, you can call one against them late in the game when the Packers have at least a 7 point lead. I think as long as you let Packer WRs get away with some pushoffs early in the game, the Packers should be able to get an early lead, making your job easier. Do NOT let any Viking WRs to get away with a pushoff.

Also, the Vikes seemed to have an edge on special teams, so try to give the Pack an edge on the line of scrimmage. On special teams plays, call the Vikes offsides on anything close, or call the Vikes OL for movement on any slight movement. If the Packers get a return, make sure you don't notice any blocks in the back, but always call a hold if it looks like the Viking returner might be able to make something out of the play.

Now, keep in mind guys, although we prefer the Pack winning this one, we don't want to make it too obvious. If it looks like were helping too much, and it even looks like the Vikes might win despite what we are doing, back off, and even give the Vikes favorable calls so it looks like were just balancing it out. IF it appears at the end the refs gave the Vikes the game, that is o.k., because if you guys have to REALLY work hard next week to assure the Packers win in the playoff game, some people will just think 'the refs are just giving this game to the Pack because they gave the Vikes the game the previous week. "



SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (12/25/2012 9:48:17 PM)

[:-]

Awesome Marty

I've spent large portions of my life fighting off the urge to blame all of my problems on people and institutions who "had it out for me".
I love that you embrace those feelings.
[&:][&:]



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/25/2012 10:08:20 PM)

There is EVERY reason to believe biased officiating can play a role in games. The Vikes played in Lameblow a few years back and there were so many calls (and non calls) that all went for the Packers that it made the national news after the Vikes complained, and the league admitted to mistakes on 8 calls that all went against the Vikes (and I think they also missed some NON calls in that one) in the 4th quarter alone.

You know, it's quite possible that if it looks like the Vikings are going to win on Sunday, the Packers defense might LET Peterson get the record if he's close. It would be smart tactically as then they won't be facing an angry Peterson the next week, but will instead get one that's a little overconfident.



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/25/2012 10:13:01 PM)

Also, I don't underestimate the Packers.

I think the Packers are fully capable of beating the Vikes at Minnesota and at GB WITHOUT biased officiating. I hope that what we see the next week or 2 is unbiased officiating, and also 2 Viking wins [;)].



Ed_Marotske -> RE: The Packers (12/27/2012 8:14:40 AM)

This from the Times4 Packer site.....These guys are something else!

I can't even begin to explain the depth of my disgust for the Vikings and more specifically their fan base. A born and bred Wisconsonite, I made the mistake of going to school up there. I ended up staying 11 years total because of a job and got to know the makeup of Viking fans very well along with the obnoxious local media. The jealousy they have for the Packers and their fans is deep rooted and has translated itself into a whiny-little tough guy on the block mentality. The abuse they would dish out to Packer fans when they were up (not even necessarily when the Packers were down) is legendary in my mind. Some of my fondest football memories I must admit are not only of epic Packer victories, but also of epic Viking losses. The NFCCG against Atlanta and NY were truly great to watch while living in Minneapolis.
4 going to the Vikings only cemented the disdain for me. The ribbing was merciless, and their last second victory over SF at the beginning of the season began for me one of the longest football nightmares I've experienced. I treated the NFCCG against NO that year as my Super Bowl. I don't remember ever being so nervous for a game before in my life. I actually went out and bought a Saints jersey and tshirt and listened to NO radio all week. The way that game began to play out was like a ritualistic killing for me, but obviously ended in a fashion beyond my wildest expectations. You couple that with the Psckers winning the SB the next year and a better fairy tale couldn't have been written.
I ended up marrying a MN girl who could give 2 flips about football which is great but doesn't shield me from her obnoxious Viking family members. I always stay quiet, but they always prod which will undoubtably lead to a blow up on my end some day. This leads me to my last point as I've become winded writing this hate manifesto...."Minnesota Nice" doesn't exist and never has. Rather the state is comprised if a bunch of people who for the most part were either born and bred there, or moved back because they missed white suburban life. They like people who think and talk like they do and don't appreciate outsiders. Heaven forbid if you are from Wisconsin.
So I continue to lead my life as a Packer fan and Viking hater in suburban white WI (my hypocrisy goes only so far) always tailgating drivers I see on the roads with MN license plates and hope that this year the Packers can add to their losing legacy and add to the frustrations of my in-laws and Viking fans in Anoka, Andover, Blaine, Eden Prairie, Minetonka, Woodbury......



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (12/27/2012 8:23:54 AM)

What does "white" have to do with anything?

What a jackwagon



Ed_Marotske -> RE: The Packers (12/27/2012 9:27:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

What does "white" have to do with anything?

What a jackwagon


Agreed!  I'll go with JackASS though!



thebigo -> RE: The Packers (12/27/2012 9:55:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

What does "white" have to do with anything?

What a jackwagon


Agreed!  I'll go with JackASS though!


There's no white people in Wisconsin. Maybe he meant people with white teeth?



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/27/2012 10:01:36 AM)

Reading his little manifesto anyone can conclude that HE'S the hater. He's the one who carries vitriol to an extreme. Heck, he supports the team that has been on the winning end but his heart is the one that is so filled with hate he can barely breathe.

He pretty much fits the characterization of Packer fans as arrogant, mean-spirited people. He pretends that his in-laws prod him, but reading how deep his loathing is - we're supposed to believe he never does any of the prodding? Bullcrap. Pretty much everything he describes about Viking fans is what I witness in Packer fans. He needs some therapy.



Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (12/27/2012 10:05:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Reading his little manifesto anyone can conclude that HE'S the hater. He's the one who carries vitriol to an extreme. Heck, he supports the team that has been on the winning end but his heart is the one that is so filled with hate he can barely breathe.

He pretty much fits the characterization of Packer fans as arrogant, mean-spirited people. He pretends that his in-laws prod him, but reading how deep his loathing is - we're supposed to believe he never does any of the prodding? Bullcrap. Pretty much everything he describes about Viking fans is what I witness in Packer fans. He needs some therapy.


Yep. 

Classic case of projection.



Ed_Marotske -> RE: The Packers (12/27/2012 10:38:10 AM)

I used to post on Times4 as I have stated in here before...and I still do on the Brewers, Bucks and Badger threads, but to even joke around with some of these rubes is off limits.  They are just mean people who believe they are a superior people because they are Packer fans.  I've supported some of the topics that have been brought up in their Packer threads and still get lambasted because I am a "Queens" fan as they like to put it.  Packer fans need to remember the 70's and 80's when their team sucked sweaty donkey balls for 20 years.  Then they all need to bow down and glorify Reggie White because HE put the Packers back on the map.....what a bunch of anal cavities!



Page: <<   < prev  111 112 [113] 114 115   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode