RE: The Packers

RE: The Packers (Full Version)

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

Message

marty -> RE: The Packers (9/22/2013 11:07:22 PM)
As bad as this season has started out, the Vikes could be ahead of the Packers in 2 weeks if the Vikes beat the 0-3 Steelers next week, and the Packers lose to the 2-1 Lions the following week. (Packers have a bye next week, the Vikes have a bye the following week). [:'(]

marty -> RE: The Packers (9/29/2013 4:31:47 PM)
After the Cincy game, several Packer fans told me they missed Greg Jennings in this game. None of the WRs were getting open, Jennings always seems to get open. As I stated in the offseason, should just ONE Packer WR go down, THEN I think they'll start to miss Jennings. It wasn't a WR, but when Finley got knocked out at Cincy, the GB offense started skidding. I hope some Viking fans now see after the Steelers' game why I wanted GJ, and was begging for him a few days before they signed him. Jennings is still VERY quick, and can make people miss, along with having good hands and good route running skills. Just average QBing, and Jennings becomes a top WR. He'll also be a GREAT guy to have around should he get a little long in the tooth (he is NOT at that point) and helping the young WRs to work hard and focus on what is important.

marty -> RE: The Packers (10/13/2013 5:37:50 PM)
When the Vikings lose in such a bad way, it hardly matters that the Packer may have benefitted from a 'sway', but I'm going to mention it anyway. I thought it was a little bit strange the Packers were favored by 3 in Baltimore, and so did many bettors as the line went to 2 at many locations. I thought the Ravens should have been favored by about 3. I thought if the refs were neutral, it was likely a Ravens' win. But there were NOT neutral. The Ravens were given holding calls on a very high number of their drives, even on their last drive, which they overcame and scored a TD. The ref(s) probably didn't want the Ravens getting that TD and making the game so close. The Packers also got away with quite a bit of holding with their 2ndary. There was even one play where, on the replay TWO Ravens' WRs were clearly held on the same play. Instead of saying that clearly should have been a flag, one of the commentators stated that the Packers were doing the right thing in trying to get away with holds as both guys on coverage were clearly going to get beat, and they DID get away with the holds. Ignoring the fact that the Ravens might have had to beat both the Packers and an official or 2 that was 'swaying' the game, I think the biggest mistake the Ravens made was after getting 1st and goal at the 4 yard line, they ran 4 straight plays up the gut and got stopped.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (10/14/2013 7:23:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty When the Vikings lose in such a bad way, it hardly matters that the Packer may have benefitted from a 'sway', but I'm going to mention it anyway. I thought it was a little bit strange the Packers were favored by 3 in Baltimore, and so did many bettors as the line went to 2 at many locations. I thought the Ravens should have been favored by about 3. I thought if the refs were neutral, it was likely a Ravens' win. But there were NOT neutral. The Ravens were given holding calls on a very high number of their drives, even on their last drive, which they overcame and scored a TD. The ref(s) probably didn't want the Ravens getting that TD and making the game so close. The Packers also got away with quite a bit of holding with their 2ndary. There was even one play where, on the replay TWO Ravens' WRs were clearly held on the same play. Instead of saying that clearly should have been a flag, one of the commentators stated that the Packers were doing the right thing in trying to get away with holds as both guys on coverage were clearly going to get beat, and they DID get away with the holds. Ignoring the fact that the Ravens might have had to beat both the Packers and an official or 2 that was 'swaying' the game, I think the biggest mistake the Ravens made was after getting 1st and goal at the 4 yard line, they ran 4 straight plays up the gut and got stopped. Ignoring the Refs and your sway argument here, but to comment on the commentator, of course they were doing the right thing. If the refs aren't calling it you keep doing it until they do. It makes it near impossible for them to catch the ball or run a good route...

marty -> RE: The Packers (10/14/2013 9:06:40 AM)
The play happened shortly after I had seen the holding call on Cook with the Vikings' game. It was almost surreal. So the Packers can do anything they want, break all the rules. And instead of an announcer calling them out on doing it, or calling out the refs for NOT calling obvious holding when there are 2 Packer DBs holding WRs on the same play, but instead we get something that sounds like praise for the Packers for doing it, and that they should keep doing it until the refs called it. Unreal.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (10/14/2013 9:49:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty The play happened shortly after I had seen the holding call on Cook with the Vikings' game. It was almost surreal. So the Packers can do anything they want, break all the rules. And instead of an announcer calling them out on doing it, or calling out the refs for NOT calling obvious holding when there are 2 Packer DBs holding WRs on the same play, but instead we get something that sounds like praise for the Packers for doing it, and that they should keep doing it until the refs called it. Unreal. The annoucers are only telling you the truth, if the refs aren't calling it, keep doing it. We've complained about it for years. The Packers seem to get special consideration from the refs. Even more so in Lambeau than anywhere.

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (10/14/2013 10:32:15 AM)
I can't get excited about ref bias for GB when we can't even compete with a 1 win Panthers team in our own building

Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (10/14/2013 11:09:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress I can't get excited about ref bias for GB when we can't even compete with a 1 win Panthers team in our own building Needless to say that the Packers wont need any help from the refs when they play us in two weeks.

marty -> RE: The Packers (10/14/2013 10:05:53 PM)
The Packers got considerable help at Baltimore, the game my have been 'swayed'. Here is what an announcer stated after looking at a replay, and discovering half way through the replay that PI was committed by a Packers CB, but not called: "Good coverage here. He's [Devon House] left in the middle of the field all by himself, you see, as he slides over working the inside part of that slot. (announcer then sees the clear PI as he's talking about the replay) A lot of contact there, now what's gonna happen is, you know, keep playing that way now, challenge the officials to make those calls. If you're going to play physical, and it's going to be a lot of contact in the passing game, continue to do that until you get that flag on pass interference." WTF ??? Do you see how he got a little bit discombobulated when he saw PI and was considering explaining it away or lying about it. Then he went ahead and justified it, making it sound just great, and that the Packers should continue to do it, like it's the smart thing to do. NO mention of how it's breaking the rules, or that a flag should have been thrown. The biggest difference between the Packers' 2ndary and the Vikings' 2ndary is that the Packers hold and commit PI on nearly every play, with very few of them ever called. IF the Vikes cut Robinson and he were picked up by the Packers, he'd be taught to hold on nearly every play so his WRs wouldn't get so open, and so he could make better plays on the ball. IF he started doing that with the Vikes, he'd likely get flagged heavily. What also bothers me is not just that the Packers are cheating and getting away with it, is the announcers that don't call them on it, and spin it positively, saying it's great play and that the Packers should just continue to do it until it's called, and even go as far as complimenting them on their physical play. IOW, the announcers many times actually have a Packers' bias. I could see some announcers with an anti-Vikings' bias, seeing a PI not getting called and saying 'it was disgraceful that the ref missed that, and that CB better watch it, better quit getting so grabby". Or a flag would be thrown, and the anti-Vikings announcer would be saying something like, 'he's just trying too hard playing on a poor 2ndary, trying to make something happen' or 'that's why this team doesn't have many games in the win column'. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ignoring all that (hard as it is), I think one of the keys to the Packers beating the Ravens was the Packers blitzing on many 3rd downs. 3 blitzes led to 3 key stops, and if they hadn't blitzed those plays, I think Flacco would have beaten them. Also, the biggest Packers' play on offense, was an impressive pass by Rodgers, a ball that went 60 yards in the air to Jordy Nelson, hitting him in stride. I would like to see Freeman doing some of that for the Vikes.

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (10/15/2013 8:11:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress I can't get excited about ref bias for GB when we can't even compete with a 1 win Panthers team in our own building Needless to say that the Packers wont need any help from the refs when they play us in two weeks. Wilf better put some money down for the sway in OUR favor

Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (10/15/2013 9:41:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty The Packers got considerable help at Baltimore, the game my have been 'swayed'. Here is what an announcer stated after looking at a replay, and discovering half way through the replay that PI was committed by a Packers CB, but not called: "Good coverage here. He's [Devon House] left in the middle of the field all by himself, you see, as he slides over working the inside part of that slot. (announcer then sees the clear PI as he's talking about the replay) A lot of contact there, now what's gonna happen is, you know, keep playing that way now, challenge the officials to make those calls. If you're going to play physical, and it's going to be a lot of contact in the passing game, continue to do that until you get that flag on pass interference." WTF ??? Do you see how he got a little bit discombobulated when he saw PI and was considering explaining it away or lying about it. Then he went ahead and justified it, making it sound just great, and that the Packers should continue to do it, like it's the smart thing to do. NO mention of how it's breaking the rules, or that a flag should have been thrown. The biggest difference between the Packers' 2ndary and the Vikings' 2ndary is that the Packers hold and commit PI on nearly every play, with very few of them ever called. IF the Vikes cut Robinson and he were picked up by the Packers, he'd be taught to hold on nearly every play so his WRs wouldn't get so open, and so he could make better plays on the ball. IF he started doing that with the Vikes, he'd likely get flagged heavily. What also bothers me is not just that the Packers are cheating and getting away with it, is the announcers that don't call them on it, and spin it positively, saying it's great play and that the Packers should just continue to do it until it's called, and even go as far as complimenting them on their physical play. IOW, the announcers many times actually have a Packers' bias. I could see some announcers with an anti-Vikings' bias, seeing a PI not getting called and saying 'it was disgraceful that the ref missed that, and that CB better watch it, better quit getting so grabby". Or a flag would be thrown, and the anti-Vikings announcer would be saying something like, 'he's just trying too hard playing on a poor 2ndary, trying to make something happen' or 'that's why this team doesn't have many games in the win column'. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ignoring all that (hard as it is), I think one of the keys to the Packers beating the Ravens was the Packers blitzing on many 3rd downs. 3 blitzes led to 3 key stops, and if they hadn't blitzed those plays, I think Flacco would have beaten them. Also, the biggest Packers' play on offense, was an impressive pass by Rodgers, a ball that went 60 yards in the air to Jordy Nelson, hitting him in stride. I would like to see Freeman doing some of that for the Vikes. All that holding and PI that they get away with they are taught to do until they are flagged for it. It's been Packer m.o. for quite some time. If they do it all the time they know the refs wont call it much. Our guys should do the same thing when they play the Packers and see how much they get away with. As for the announcer...he pointed out exactly what he should have. That if the refs aren't going to call it, keep doing it. It's a smart play to do so. If you can get away with the contact then do so. That certainly doesn't show the announcers are in on a sway or that a sway is even occurring. Just that he was surprised that they got away with it and commended the back for keeping it up when they knew they could get away with it. i would commend them too.

marty -> RE: The Packers (10/15/2013 9:02:52 PM)
I wasn't saying the announcer was in on a 'sway', just that the announcer might have had a pro-Packer bias. I wouldn't commend the Packers breaking the rules. I would commend the Vikes for FOLLOWING the rules. Perhaps the biggest difference between the Vikes' 2ndary and the Packers' 2ndary is the Vikes try to follow the rules, while the Packers see how much they can get away with, with holding and PI. If I were a neutral observer, I wouldn't have commended the Packers and commented that they should just keep doing it. Instead, I would have said the Packer DB got away with one there, that he knowingly broke the rules and got away with it. And then I would have stated that while the refs don't need to throw a flag for every single thing that looks close to being a penalty, they need to watch carefully on 3rd down and make a good call based on what they saw. IF it were my last day of broadcasting, I would have had some fun and said: You guys really need to pay some attention to the officiating today, especially in the early part of this game. They are calling holding on the OL on nearly every Ravens' drive, while allowing the Packer OL to hold, and simultaneously allowing Packer DBs to hold and commit PI a considerable amount, especially on 3rd down. It could just be dumb luck, or perhaps the refs are 'swaying' this game in favor of the Packers so they either win or have a better chance of covering the spread. Since the Packers did NOT cover the spread (it was GB -3, which was strange to me, I thought the Ravens would have been favored by about 3 going into the game, and the bettors thought the same thing, more betting on the Ravens moving the spread to 2), it might well have been a failed attempt at 'swaying' the game for the Packers covering the spread, unless it was just their desire that the Packers won the game. IF it missed on the point spread, it was either a valiant effort by the Ravens where the refs didn't want to bring suspicion on themselves by going overboard, or maybe the Packers didn't do enough things to more easily cover the spread. The Packers had 2 good WRs knocked out of the game, that may have had something to do with it. Or, perhaps the Packers going conservative and running the ball a lot makes it harder for them to get a big lead and blow out an opponent, even when they are getting considerable help from the officials.

marty -> RE: The Packers (10/15/2013 9:58:15 PM)
I think the Packers getting conservative on offense, running the ball a lot more, makes it easier for a team to upset them. It means Rodgers has to be more perfect in his fewer throws. It means the Packers aren't likely to blow teams out, unless they get the passing game going more early on. I think Rodgers doesn't mind this, as he is taking FAR fewer hits this year. I was wondering after last year, if Rodgers might well be a guy who only plays a few more years, taking a beating like a RB, and having a short shelf life. But the Packers were smart and got Newhouse away from LT, got a good one in Bakhtiari, and now run the ball a lot more with Lacy. Rodgers is taking A LOT fewer hits this year, and I don't think he minds going conservative, as long as his team wins. The only problem is, some teams that might be inferior, like Chicago and Detroit might take advantage of this and pull upsets on the Pack, leading the Pack to finish 2nd or 3rd in the division. I also like the fact that the Packers aren't going out and getting another good WR, and will instead rely on talent within, and with running a more conservative offense that runs the ball more. It means the Packers won't dominate with their passing game, and hopefully it means an early exit from the playoffs, or their not making the playoffs.

marty -> RE: The Packers (11/4/2013 10:48:55 PM)
The Packers without Arrogant Rodgers, look a little bit like the Vikings. Suddenly, many players on their roster look ordinary. This makes me believe IF the Vikes can land a great QB in the draft, the Vikes can turn it around in 1 or 2 years. That's another reason to keep JA.

marty -> RE: The Packers (11/4/2013 11:14:14 PM)
I hope the Packer fans don't think I was jinxing Aaron Rodgers when I suggested after last weeks game that it was like a chess match, and one team had a Queen (Aaron Rodgers), and the other team (the Vikes) didn't. In order for the lesser to team beat them, they either have to knock out the opposing teams' QB, or get a Queen of their own (Manziel or Bridgewater ). Maybe the Bears picked up on that message subliminally, knew they were going to lose, unless they knocked out Rodgers, so they went into the game deciding to be physical.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (11/5/2013 7:23:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty I hope the Packer fans don't think I was jinxing Aaron Rodgers when I suggested after last weeks game that it was like a chess match, and one team had a Queen (Aaron Rodgers), and the other team (the Vikes) didn't. In order for the lesser to team beat them, they either have to knock out the opposing teams' QB, or get a Queen of their own (Manziel or Bridgewater ). Maybe the Bears picked up on that message subliminally, knew they were going to lose, unless they knocked out Rodgers, so they went into the game deciding to be physical. Speaking of Chess, Over the weekend, my thirteen year old son caught me off guard and checkmated me in four moves. Devious little geekling making his father proud.

Prescott -> RE: The Packers (11/5/2013 7:53:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty I hope the Packer fans don't think I was jinxing Aaron Rodgers when I suggested after last weeks game that it was like a chess match, and one team had a Queen (Aaron Rodgers), and the other team (the Vikes) didn't. In order for the lesser to team beat them, they either have to knock out the opposing teams' QB, or get a Queen of their own (Manziel or Bridgewater ). Maybe the Bears picked up on that message subliminally, knew they were going to lose, unless they knocked out Rodgers, so they went into the game deciding to be physical. I'm pretty sure Packer fans were hanging on your every word, Marty. The fact that you mentioned the name Aaron Rodgers proves you were jinxing him. No one else has ever mentioned their QB when talking about the Packers, or that he needs to stay healthy for them to be good. Your ability to affect world forces is breathtaking and being able subliminally send messages to Bears players who have no clue who you are or what you type on the interwebs is a power that should be harnessed.

Duane Sampson -> RE: The Packers (11/5/2013 8:49:07 AM)
Rodgers' commercials are great. I think he can get into show biz after football.

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (11/5/2013 8:53:41 AM)
I didn't watch the game - was it on a sack that he was injured?

marty -> RE: The Packers (11/5/2013 8:04:39 PM)
Prescott, I don't think my powers can be harnessed, nor can they be contained [:D]. I think perhaps the Vikes should release Ponder, and sign Matt Flynn, just so the Packers don't get him for the next 5 years. He was a very good backup for them, and I would rather see them struggling trying to find a backup for him for a while. And maybe Flynn ends up being a good backup for the Vikes.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (11/6/2013 9:26:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty Prescott, I don't my powers can be harnessed, nor can they be contained [:D]. I think perhaps the Vikes should release Ponder, and sign Matt Flynn, just so the Packers don't get him for the next 5 years. He was a very good backup for them, and I would rather see them struggling trying to find a backup for him for a while. And maybe Flynn ends up being a good backup for the Vikes. if the Packers want Flynn they can have him. Replacing Ponder with Flynn would be like replacing poop with shit.

thebigo -> RE: The Packers (11/6/2013 10:10:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lynn G. I didn't watch the game - was it on a sack that he was injured? No, it was on a shoulder that he was injured. [&:]

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (11/6/2013 10:43:23 AM)
Gotta admit - that was a good one.

Zoilo -> RE: The Packers (11/6/2013 2:05:30 PM)
Broken collarbone - left side - the Packers just have no luck in keeping their QBs healthy.

Prescott -> RE: The Packers (11/6/2013 2:26:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty Prescott, I don't my powers can be harnessed, nor can they be contained [:D]. I think perhaps the Vikes should release Ponder, and sign Matt Flynn, just so the Packers don't get him for the next 5 years. He was a very good backup for them, and I would rather see them struggling trying to find a backup for him for a while. And maybe Flynn ends up being a good backup for the Vikes. I tried catching a bag of air once. I think I succeeded! [;)]

Page: << < prev 115 116 [117] 118 119 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode