RE:The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

Trekgeekscott -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 9:01:57 PM)

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"] If you're not a fan of the team you're writing for, it doesn't make much sense to write about them. [/quote] Then explain Pat Reusse... Oh wait. he doesn't make much sense so I guess your point stands.



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 9:25:42 PM)

Craig, The problem is that nowhere in that column does it say he's writing for scout.com. The only reference is the guy's gmail account - which is the way columns are listed when they're personal blogs. If that article was taken from scout.com, my mistake.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 9:28:13 PM)

[quote="Lynn G."]Craig, The problem is that nowhere in that column does it say he's writing for scout.com. The only reference is the guy's gmail account - which is the way columns are listed when they're personal blogs. If that article was taken from scout.com, my mistake.[/quote] Duane forgot to put the link for the article. It's a pay site for the most part, so that may have been why he couldn't put the link in the article. See, this is all Duane's fault! :lol: I knew that Dylan writes for them, so I guess I had inside info on that.



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 9:33:11 PM)

I like blaming Sammy - - - I'll go with that. :D



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 9:41:54 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]But we will find out for sure just how good the packers are this week.[/quote] Oh yes. The Minnesota Vikings will be Green Bay's ULTIMATE CHALLENGE!



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 9:45:04 PM)

[quote="Pete C"]And we'll really find out about Favre if they make the playoffs. If memory serves, he's got about a 2 to 1 interception to touchdown ratio over the last five postseason games. In fact, as the weather turns, I expect them to fall quite a bit.[/quote] Postseason for the Packers has definitely sucked the past several years. As much as I'd like them to win the Super Bowl, I'll take a consistently competitive team instead. No team has won more games over the past ten seasons than GB. Regarding the weather...bring it on. The Packers are toughest when it's colder. The colder, the better.



Guest -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 9:56:12 PM)

[quote="David Moufang"] No team has won more games over the past ten seasons than GB. [/quote] ********************************* You might want to recheck your math on that one.



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 10:06:51 PM)

[quote="Pete C"][quote="David Moufang"] No team has won more games over the past ten seasons than GB. [/quote] ********************************* You might want to recheck your math on that one.[/quote] Well, I read that somewhere. It's wrong -- Patriots are .660 in 1998-2007. Packers are only .599.



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 10:09:57 PM)

[quote="David Moufang"] As much as I'd like them to win the Super Bowl, I'll take a consistently competitive team instead. [/quote] I feel the same way about my team.



Guest -> RE:The Packers (11/6/2007 10:16:22 PM)

[quote="David Moufang"][quote="Pete C"][quote="David Moufang"] No team has won more games over the past ten seasons than GB. [/quote] ********************************* You might want to recheck your math on that one.[/quote] Well, I read that somewhere. It's wrong -- Patriots are .660 in 1998-2007. Packers are only .599.[/quote] ********************************************************** I believe Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and Denver have more wins over that time frame too.



LEATHERFACE47 -> RE:The Packers (11/7/2007 3:10:34 AM)

Regarding the weather...bring it on. The Packers are toughest when it's colder. The colder, the better. righhhhhht............loss to atlanta in a snowstorm.......loss to the vikings with an injured moss.....gb hasnt done squat in the playoffs in recent memory...they are a shell and will be exposed as such....i'm not saying the vikings WILL win, but since they can't run AT ALL, butt farte will have to put it up around 55 times, sounds like a 4 pick game to me. Part of me actually wishes they would get to the super bowl and get absolutely shellacked by new england, say 55-7....just be embarrased on national tv



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/7/2007 3:18:56 AM)

[quote="LEATHERFACE47"]Regarding the weather...bring it on. The Packers are toughest when it's colder. The colder, the better. righhhhhht............loss to atlanta in a snowstorm.......loss to the vikings with an injured moss.....gb hasnt done squat in the playoffs in recent memory...they are a shell and will be exposed as such....i'm not saying the vikings WILL win, but since they can't run AT ALL, butt farte will have to put it up around 55 times, sounds like a 4 pick game to me. Part of me actually wishes they would get to the super bowl and get absolutely shellacked by new england, say 55-7....just be embarrased on national tv[/quote] Excellent post! :cool: :cool: :cool:



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/7/2007 6:51:09 AM)

[quote="LEATHERFACE47"]Regarding the weather...bring it on. The Packers are toughest when it's colder. The colder, the better. righhhhhht............loss to atlanta in a snowstorm.......loss to the vikings with an injured moss.....gb hasnt done squat in the playoffs in recent memory...they are a shell and will be exposed as such....i'm not saying the vikings WILL win, but since they can't run AT ALL, butt farte will have to put it up around 55 times, sounds like a 4 pick game to me. Part of me actually wishes they would get to the super bowl and get absolutely shellacked by new england, say 55-7....just be embarrased on national tv[/quote] He was 32/45 in the first game with zero INTs. Notwithstanding Darren Sharper's rhetoric, I'd give it a 50/50 chance for at least one INT. I doubt there'll be four though. As far as being embarrassed on national TV, the Packers already took care of that with their numbskullery against the Bears. :)



Duane Sampson -> RE:The Packers (11/7/2007 2:54:50 PM)

Donald Lee Contract Cap Ramifications Wed Nov 7, 2007 The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports the Green Bay Packers nailed down a potential unrestricted free agent and moved some valuable salary cap room from this year to next with the signing of TE Donald Lee to a contract extension. Lee's four-year, $11.88 million contract eats up $4.295 million worth of salary cap room in 2007, in part because incentives worth $1.7 million were added to the contract. If those so-called "likely to be earned" incentives aren't earned, the salary cap room they take up will carry over to next season. According to a source with NFL salary information, Lee has to block six punts and play on 65% of the snaps on special teams this season to earn the incentives. Given that he doesn't play on special teams and won't be blocking a punt any time soon, it's virtually guaranteed the $1.7 million of salary cap room will be moved to next year. The Packers have already pushed almost $6 million of cap room into next year using this tactic. Such "dummy" incentives are used by teams that have a considerable amount of salary cap room left near season's end. The Packers now have a little over $3 million left under the cap this year. Lee's contract is structured such that it will pay him $2 million on top of his $595,000 base salary this year, a $1 million roster bonus in March, and base salaries of $1.6 million in '08, $1.8 million in '09, $2.0 million in '10 and $2.2 million in '11. In addition, he will earn $10,000 for every game he is on the 45-man game day active list, beginning next season. Lee also can earn a bonus of $125,000 each year for taking part in a set minimum of off-season workouts. According to a source with NFL salary information, Lee has to block six punts and play on 65% of the snaps on special teams this season to earn the incentives :lol: I love the salary cap :lol:



Steve Lentz -> RE:The Packers (11/8/2007 2:17:17 AM)

The Packers ability to rebuild their OL at the guard positions so well is what has impressed me. A couple years ago I thought that would be their weakness.



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/8/2007 2:47:02 AM)

[quote="Steve Lentz"]The Packers ability to rebuild their OL at the guard positions so well is what has impressed me. A couple years ago I thought that would be their weakness.[/quote] True. That's my North Pole boy Daryn Colledge baby!



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/8/2007 5:15:32 AM)

[quote="djskilbr"][quote="Steve Lentz"]The Packers ability to rebuild their OL at the guard positions so well is what has impressed me. A couple years ago I thought that would be their weakness.[/quote] True. That's my North Pole boy Daryn Colledge baby![/quote] I assume you guys are being sarcastic, our Guards stink.



Toby Stumbo -> RE:The Packers (11/8/2007 5:28:25 AM)

GO VIKES GO!!! :scream: :ad:



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/8/2007 9:17:35 AM)

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="djskilbr"][quote="Steve Lentz"]The Packers ability to rebuild their OL at the guard positions so well is what has impressed me. A couple years ago I thought that would be their weakness.[/quote] True. That's my North Pole boy Daryn Colledge baby![/quote] I assume you guys are being sarcastic, our Guards stink.[/quote] Colledge WILL be good Craig. Just wait. I think your RB's suck just as much as your OL at this point. I've never thought much of Jackson at all.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/8/2007 3:32:20 PM)

[quote="djskilbr"][quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="djskilbr"][quote="Steve Lentz"]The Packers ability to rebuild their OL at the guard positions so well is what has impressed me. A couple years ago I thought that would be their weakness.[/quote] True. That's my North Pole boy Daryn Colledge baby![/quote] I assume you guys are being sarcastic, our Guards stink.[/quote] Colledge WILL be good Craig. Just wait. I think your RB's suck just as much as your OL at this point. I've never thought much of Jackson at all.[/quote] Jackson is not turning out to be such a good pick, that much is pretty well accepted. However, Colledge is terrible. There was an article this week in the Milwaukee paper about how bad he's been. I wouldn't be surprised if he's replaced next season.



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/8/2007 8:11:54 PM)

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="djskilbr"][quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="djskilbr"][quote="Steve Lentz"]The Packers ability to rebuild their OL at the guard positions so well is what has impressed me. A couple years ago I thought that would be their weakness.[/quote] True. That's my North Pole boy Daryn Colledge baby![/quote] I assume you guys are being sarcastic, our Guards stink.[/quote] Colledge WILL be good Craig. Just wait. I think your RB's suck just as much as your OL at this point. I've never thought much of Jackson at all.[/quote] Jackson is not turning out to be such a good pick, that much is pretty well accepted. However, Colledge is terrible. There was an article this week in the Milwaukee paper about how bad he's been. I wouldn't be surprised if he's replaced next season.[/quote] We'll see Craig. I know I'm biased on him, but he's always been the 'hard worker' type and as such just might take longer than most. For instance, if you had told me coming out of high school that he would be a top G in the country in college, I would have said you were crazy. I think he added something like 80 pounds of muscle over a couple years there. We'll see I guess. Obviously good for my Vikes if he DOESN'T pan out. ;)



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/8/2007 10:57:12 PM)

Was it really muscle or did he have some help that he can't use in the pros?



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/8/2007 11:41:18 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]Was it really muscle or did he have some help that he can't use in the pros?[/quote] Well, there's no way of knowing of course, but my little brother (he new him much better than me) says no way would he ever do that. Plus Boise State is renowned for their development program. Still takes hard work to do it though.



Toby Stumbo -> RE:The Packers (11/9/2007 1:42:32 AM)

[quote="Toby Stumbo"]GO VIKES GO!!! :scream: :ad:[/quote] :yeahthat: :govikes:



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/9/2007 2:32:07 AM)

This thread needs a little dressing up... :viking: :viking: :scream: :scream: :helga2: :helga: :ad: :ad: :ad:



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode