RE: The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

marty -> RE: The Packers (2/19/2014 8:27:31 PM)

In that case, maybe there is a GOOD chance I'll find somebody going out to Vegas in May.

Basically we have the entire gamut here. Marty is going to bet a good chunk of money on the Packers to win it all, but equally thinks they have a good chance to finish in the toilet. Sounds just about perfect.


You are correct Prescott. That's part of the reason I wasn't eager to make a bet on them right now.

Although I was just trying to lift Lynn's spirits a little bit, the Packers ARE odd in that I think they really could run the gamut, either finishing last place in the division, or winning the SB. I don't feel that way about many teams. I think the Vikes chances of winning the SB next year are near zero, but finishing last in the division is a pretty strong possibility.

they had injuries to their WR corps last year before Rodgers went out and they kept winning.


Partly because they are well stocked at WR (Boykin could be a future star), and of course the talents of Aaron Rodgers. But I think if they lose Jones and Finley to FA, and Nelson goes down with an injury, I think they'll struggle, especially against the tougher teams.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/10/16/4842732/randall-cobb-injury-packers-wide-receivers-aaron-rodgers

Part of the reason they were still able to tick with Cobb out, and Jones hobbled, is the talents of Jordy Nelson. Boykin and Finley picked up the slack a little bit, and the running of Eddie Lacy also helped quite a bit.



Prescott -> RE: The Packers (2/20/2014 9:09:15 AM)

quote:

That's part of the reason I wasn't eager to make a bet on them right now.


Did you clue your buddy in that letting you talk him into making that bet was stupid on his part?

quote:

In that case, maybe there is a GOOD chance I'll find somebody going out to Vegas in May.


I'm betting not. Just like I called betting that you wouldn't make the bet on the Packers.



marty -> RE: The Packers (2/20/2014 10:20:01 PM)

[&:]



marty -> RE: The Packers (3/17/2014 8:17:17 PM)

I think Peppers COULD help the Packers be a Super Bowl team. I'm hoping he works out about as well as C Jeff Saturday did for them.

I think Peppers will give the Packers a really strong year his 1st year, like his 1st year with the Bears. Should they NOT win the SB, I think he'll go back to being lazy the 2nd year, and be cut by the 3rd year. Hopefully, he doesn't do much his 1st season, and is cut the 2nd.

I was glad to see the Packers lose their Center. Teams that lose their center many times struggled offensive the 1st year, and maybe more years if they struggle to find a replacement.

I was also glad to see the Packers lose James Jones. Although Boykin gives them more speed, more of a playmaker, Boykin is lanky and might be injury prone. Also, Jones was tough, and he sometimes bailed out Rodgers by coming back for the ball, and beating the defender. Hopefully Rodgers misses that, and ends up throwing more INTs, or bad passes.



marty -> RE: The Packers (3/17/2014 8:18:09 PM)

Peppers COULD help the Packers become a Super Bowl team. Hopefully he works out about as well as C Jeff Saturday did for them.

I think Peppers will give the Packers a really strong year his 1st year, like his 1st year with the Bears. Should they NOT win the SB, I think he'll go back to being lazy the 2nd year, and be cut by the 3rd year. Hopefully, he doesn't do much his 1st season, and is cut the 2nd.

I was glad to see the Packers lose their Center. Teams that lose their center many times struggle offensively the 1st year, and maybe more years if they struggle to find a replacement.

I was also glad to see the Packers lose James Jones. Although Boykin gives them more speed, more of a playmaker, Boykin is lanky and might be injury prone. Also, Jones was tough, and he sometimes bailed out Rodgers by coming back for the ball, and beating the defender. Hopefully Rodgers misses that, and ends up throwing more INTs, or bad passes.



Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (9/5/2014 7:48:21 AM)

Packers were wholly and entirely outclassed last night.

Aaron Rodgers was not the best QB on the field.
They didn't throw to Richard Sherman's side of the field at all. That sounds like they are playing scared. If you don't test him, he can't beat you to be sure, but you can't beat him either.
Seattle is a very good football team and most picked the Packers to lose, but most didn't think they would get manhandled by them.


Packers should still vie for the division title, but they aren't all that like many predicted.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (9/5/2014 9:55:52 AM)

Rodgers went down a peg or two off that performance

He was scared and confused most of the game

How about the play when he was a yard away from a 1st down but instead chose to throw a bad pass?

Seattle makes great QBs look ordinary

Except Luck



bgdavis -> RE: The Packers (9/5/2014 10:55:36 AM)

I have to agree. Outside of the GB scoring drives, Rodgers looked very ordinary. If it wasn't for the Seattle miscue on the muffed punt (which led to GB's first TD), or the long pass interference penalty (which led to GB's FG), GB might have only ended up scoring 1 TD with 5 mins to go in the 4th quarter - essentially garbage time at that point.



El Duderino -> RE: The Packers (9/5/2014 4:20:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

Packers were wholly and entirely outclassed last night.

Aaron Rodgers was not the best QB on the field.
They didn't throw to Richard Sherman's side of the field at all. That sounds like they are playing scared. If you don't test him, he can't beat you to be sure, but you can't beat him either.
Seattle is a very good football team and most picked the Packers to lose, but most didn't think they would get manhandled by them.


Packers should still vie for the division title, but they aren't all that like many predicted.


They'll vie for it, but I have some serious concerns about them.

-Injuries. This is a skipping record. That injury to Bulaga could very well snowball into another injury for Rodgers.
-Depth at Receivers. Nelson and Cobb are both playing one rung higher on the depth chart than they ought to, and after that, they have nothing. And TE is super weak for them as well.
-Secondary. Clinton-Dix had good position a few times, but his tackling was bad. Morgan Burnett was the only other player to make any plays.
-Defensive Scheme. Simply put, the Packers don't have the horses to run a 3-4. Matthews is good at OLB, but he's the only good LB they have. And without Raji, they have nothing that resembles a nose tackle. Letroy Guion? Good luck with that!

On that last point, it did look like Capers recognized the issue. In the first half, they were playing 3-4 and getting no pressure. In the second half, they started playing Peppers on the line instead of LB, and they started getting some pressure. Unfortunately for them, that didn't help their run game at all. The LBs outside of Matthews were completely lost, and Guion is still no run stopper. Honestly, this is a huge failing on the part of Ted Thompson. They're missing key players for both schemes, something TT should have addressed in the offseason.

All that said, this was the worst possible scenario for them: against the defending champ on the road in the hardest stadium to play in. But I'm starting to think this could be the year that their injuries and lack of activity in free agency finally catch up to them.



Bill Jandro -> RE: The Packers (9/6/2014 4:49:43 PM)

After further review the Packers suck.

I absolutely hate them.



Bill Jandro -> RE: The Packers (9/6/2014 4:54:06 PM)

-Injuries. This is a skipping record. That injury to Bulaga could very well snowball into another injury for Rodgers.

I think the McCarthy regime has some deep rooted problems most likely with the conditioning of his players.
They are constantly decimated by injuries even the year they won the SB under McCarthy. Now, they no longer have any depth at any position thanks to TT drafting.



marty -> RE: The Packers (10/6/2015 3:06:07 PM)

I was hoping the 49 ers would once again give the Packers trouble, and they might have if the refs didn't call a holding penalty against the 49 ers every time Kap had a big run in the 1st half. It is obvious the Packers are just more likeable than the 49 ers, or the Pack wouldn't get favorable officiating at SF.

I realize that Kap's horrid passing this year, gave the 49ers no chance if getting back into the game, but the refs made sure the 49ers would get no edge Advantage with Kap's running in this.one



David Levine -> RE: The Packers (10/6/2015 3:23:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

It is obvious the Packers are just much better than the 49 ers.



Fixed that for you...



marty -> RE: The Packers (10/7/2015 1:22:42 AM)

David, I don't deny that one bit. I just don't like it when it appears the refs might be making a certain outcome much more probable, possibly taking away an important dimension for one team with what may be biased or even WRONG calls.



Tim Cady -> RE: The Packers (11/12/2015 2:13:10 PM)

Marty - Packers a little thin on backend. The governor(Lombardi) has been removed from Stafford's arm. Smells like the first victory in Green Bay for the Lions since 1991.



Tim Cady -> RE: The Packers (11/12/2015 4:31:13 PM)

http://www.packers.com/news-and-events/article-10-things/article-1/Theyre-not-1-7-these-Lions-are-0-0/1a88cab7-f202-4018-934b-ccac4fefbca5

http://www.packers.com/media-center/videos/Packers-vs-Lions-preview/117d7e00-b212-4cb7-a4b2-fdd866aed575



Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (12/4/2015 1:32:59 PM)

Note to Packers fans. When you come down from your high of winning a game...remember this. It took a hail mary pass after a phantom penalty to beat the Detroilet Lions...



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/6/2015 10:16:14 AM)

It's a shame we have to wait another 7 days to find out what new and innovative ways the refs will have to help out the Packers. It's almost become like a drinking game, although after two decades of this crap anyone playing the drinking game would be dead of liver failure.



thebigo -> RE: The Packers (12/6/2015 7:57:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

It's a shame we have to wait another 7 days to find out what new and innovative ways the refs will have to help out the Packers. It's almost become like a drinking game, although after two decades of this crap anyone playing the drinking game would be dead of liver failure.


But only another 4 days to find out what new and innovative ways the refs will have to screw us.



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/6/2015 8:31:15 PM)

True. Good chance I won't be watching. There are only so many times I need to hit myself in the head with a brick before I figure out it is better to set the brick down.



marty -> RE: The Packers (1/8/2016 11:46:32 PM)

I mentioned the fact that James Jones pushed off 3 times, none of them flagged, in the last meeting with the Packers because it was out of character for him.

Jones was a guy that rarely pushed off. He must have been looking at film of Jordy Nelson, as Nelson pushed off quite a bit, and maybe the Packers were searching for answers as far as WRs getting open, as they've struggled with that a lot this season.

Sometimes a WR almost HAS to push off because the defender is holding him, I'm just not sure if that is true in this case, if Rhodes or another defender had him just a second before any of his pushoffs, didn't get a good enough look, just saw the pushoff. It's not a bad idea for Jones to pushoff a little bit (provided it doesn't draw a flag) as he doesn't usually get separation, many of his better catches are either well placed passes where only the WR can get to it with a good effort, or an underthrown comebacker where Jones is quicker than the defender at coming back for the ball.



marty -> RE: The Packers (1/17/2016 11:28:23 PM)

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25452559/nfl-on-packers-cardinals-coin-toss-controversy-ref-didnt-need-to-re-flip

It brings up a few interesting things.

1) It sort of unfair the Packers got a re-flip in the first place, have other teams ever gotten that ? Would the Vikes have gotten a re-flip in that situation ?

2) The NFL in this article was saying there was no need for a re-flip. What the NFL is saying, is a ref could toss the coin with no flip, if he wanted a certain team to win the flip, or toss, whatever you want to call it.

3) Sort of ironic that the QB (team) that tests every rule by doing things like getting penalties on the opponents defense for 12 man on the field, while doing a snap where the OL isn't set, or getting free plays in a similar vein, possibly faking his facemask was grabbed, crying for PI on nearly every deep pass, and crying for it even when his WR committed it, is the same QB that loses by something involving the rules, or a testing of them.



Black 47 -> RE: The Packers (1/18/2016 3:16:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25452559/nfl-on-packers-cardinals-coin-toss-controversy-ref-didnt-need-to-re-flip

It brings up a few interesting things.

1) It sort of unfair the Packers got a re-flip in the first place, have other teams ever gotten that ? Would the Vikes have gotten a re-flip in that situation ?

2) The NFL in this article was saying there was no need for a re-flip. What the NFL is saying, is a ref could toss the coin with no flip, if he wanted a certain team to win the flip, or toss, whatever you want to call it.

3) Sort of ironic that the QB (team) that tests every rule by doing things like getting penalties on the opponents defense for 12 man on the field, while doing a snap where the OL isn't set, or getting free plays in a similar vein, possibly faking his facemask was grabbed, crying for PI on nearly every deep pass, and crying for it even when his WR committed it, is the same QB that loses by something involving the rules, or a testing of them.

Awesome post. 100% truth. Rodgers just a whiny pathetic baby. And McCarthy and his little red flag drive me insane. Challenges catch/non-catch plays all the time and somehow wins all of them. I'm still steamed over the Dez Bryant call. And the Shianco reversal in 2010 that ultimately got the Packers in the playoffs and won them a SuperBowl. Except for the Hail Mary in Seattle, GB gets every call imaginable..............and still whines more than any other team. Cannot stand McCarthy and Rodgers.



Todd M -> RE: The Packers (1/18/2016 4:01:39 PM)

quote:

I'm still steamed over the Dez Bryant call.


Seemed like more of a catch than Fitz's they gave him. That McCarthy somehow didn't get the reversal on.



thebigo -> RE: The Packers (1/18/2016 4:23:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25452559/nfl-on-packers-cardinals-coin-toss-controversy-ref-didnt-need-to-re-flip

It brings up a few interesting things.

1) It sort of unfair the Packers got a re-flip in the first place, have other teams ever gotten that ? Would the Vikes have gotten a re-flip in that situation ?

2) The NFL in this article was saying there was no need for a re-flip. What the NFL is saying, is a ref could toss the coin with no flip, if he wanted a certain team to win the flip, or toss, whatever you want to call it.

3) Sort of ironic that the QB (team) that tests every rule by doing things like getting penalties on the opponents defense for 12 man on the field, while doing a snap where the OL isn't set, or getting free plays in a similar vein, possibly faking his facemask was grabbed, crying for PI on nearly every deep pass, and crying for it even when his WR committed it, is the same QB that loses by something involving the rules, or a testing of them.


Of course a ref would never do that, 1) because the odds of it not flipping even if the ref tried to flip it without flipping are extremely low and 2) it would give the obvious appearance of impropriety, or incompetence, with little chance of actually influencing any outcome.



Page: <<   < prev  118 119 [120] 121 122   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode