RE:The Packers

RE:The Packers (Full Version)

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

Message

Duane Sampson -> RE:The Packers (11/23/2007 9:10:38 PM)
[quote="David Moufang"][quote="Duane Sampson"]Pay-Per-View everything is coming.[/quote] Unfortunately, I think you're right. The NFL has always exerted tight control over television broadcasts, and in my opinion it's gotten tighter in recent years. I don't know when they instituted this system where only one network gets both the early and late games. It's a serious nuisance though. Seems like there have been more pay-only games since last year. Monday Night Football moved to cable TV. Many people are still bitter about that. I tell them that NBC picked up the Sunday night game, but that doesn't seem to be any consolation. Then we got this idiotic NFL Network. I missed last year's Green Bay/Minnesota game at Lambeau because of it. It was a lousy game, but I still wanted to see it. And now I'll probably miss the Dallas game unless I want to go sit in a bar all night.[/quote] I've been paying for the games for years. I'd rather pay for the Vikings instead of all of the games. Like a PPV movie, buy the game you want. I still can't complain much, though. I can easily spend 50-75 bucks every time I walk into a bar to watch a game, so NFL Ticket saves me money.

thebigo -> RE:The Packers (11/23/2007 9:32:33 PM)
[quote="Duane Sampson"]Udeze to Appeal Fine Thu Nov 22, 2007 The Star Tribune reports Minnesota Vikings DE Kenechi Udeze plans to appeal the $7,500 fine he received from the NFL for a third-quarter hit on Green Bay Packers QB Brett Favre in the Packers' 34-0 victory over the Vikings on Nov. 11. The fine was for a hit to the quarterback's head. Has any player ever won an appeal like this? Whatever the debate position you take on this, that is one touchy play to lose 7,500 clams on.[/quote] The penalty itself was ridiculous. Are these fines handed out automatically, with no one reviewing the film?

Toby Stumbo -> RE:The Packers (11/23/2007 9:34:34 PM)
[quote="#1 Bart Starr fan"][quote="Duane Sampson"]Pretty funny that the office Packers fans are already crying that they don't have NFL Network to watch the "big" game. Beap Chastards won't shell out for Directv. I told 'em I'd go to the bar with them so they can watch it. And I'll protect them if anybody starts giving 'em shit for drinkin' pink squirrels. :lol:[/quote] For me, it's not economics, it's that I have Comcast cable. I have considered getting satellite, but enough people tell me stories of interruption of service due to weather conditions that I'm reluctant. If anyone here who has satellite can give me some opinions on this subject, I'd love to hear from them. Again, we'd prefer to not give our business to Comcast. My BASIC cable bill (no premium channels, just the standard package with stuff like ESPN, HGTV, Food, FX, USA, MSNBC, TMC...etc) costs me more than 50 bucks a month. But I don't want to switch and right in the middle of a program, have a thunderstorm or snowstorm knock me out for a few hours. Thanks in advance for any ideas you all care to express.[/quote] I watched the Indy/Falcons game on SOPcast last night, I'm sure the Packer/Cowboys game will be on there as well. :beer:

Toby Stumbo -> RE:The Packers (11/23/2007 9:35:25 PM)
[quote="Duane Sampson"][quote="David Moufang"][quote="Duane Sampson"]Pay-Per-View everything is coming.[/quote] Unfortunately, I think you're right. The NFL has always exerted tight control over television broadcasts, and in my opinion it's gotten tighter in recent years. I don't know when they instituted this system where only one network gets both the early and late games. It's a serious nuisance though. Seems like there have been more pay-only games since last year. Monday Night Football moved to cable TV. Many people are still bitter about that. I tell them that NBC picked up the Sunday night game, but that doesn't seem to be any consolation. Then we got this idiotic NFL Network. I missed last year's Green Bay/Minnesota game at Lambeau because of it. It was a lousy game, but I still wanted to see it. And now I'll probably miss the Dallas game unless I want to go sit in a bar all night.[/quote] I've been paying for the games for years. I'd rather pay for the Vikings instead of all of the games. Like a PPV movie, buy the game you want. I still can't complain much, though. I can easily spend 50-75 bucks every time I walk into a bar to watch a game, so NFL Ticket saves me money.[/quote] Saves you bar money but since you have a party every Sunday are you really saving money? :lol:

John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/23/2007 9:44:13 PM)
[quote="David Moufang"][quote="Duane Sampson"]Pay-Per-View everything is coming.[/quote] Unfortunately, I think you're right. The NFL has always exerted tight control over television broadcasts, and in my opinion it's gotten tighter in recent years. I don't know when they instituted this system where only one network gets both the early and late games. It's a serious nuisance though. Seems like there have been more pay-only games since last year. Monday Night Football moved to cable TV. Many people are still bitter about that. I tell them that NBC picked up the Sunday night game, but that doesn't seem to be any consolation. Then we got this idiotic NFL Network. I missed last year's Green Bay/Minnesota game at Lambeau because of it. It was a lousy game, but I still wanted to see it. And now I'll probably miss the Dallas game unless I want to go sit in a bar all night.[/quote] Greed is going to kill the NFL Games on pay only networks is going to eventually turn casual fans away. Then they are turning off serious fans with crap like Tony Kornheiser and celebrity guests in the booth. Lastly, the Goodell crackdown on bad behavior became a joke when they glossed over the spygate crap. If he really wanted to send a message that cheating would not be tolerated the Pats should have been banned from post-season play this year. It is the same thing with steroids as they look the other way. They can give a guy a year ban for smoking MJ but accessories to murder can play! The NFL should look at Los Angeles and learn. I remember when the Raiders and Rams left people thought "the people of LA will soon demand an expansion team". Nope. They found there are many other things to do in life. The same thing can happen in the rest of the country if they keep screwing the fan and faking the ethics. Sir Nosedevoidoffunk says "don't fake the funk or your nose will grow"!!!

Duane Sampson -> RE:The Packers (11/23/2007 9:54:10 PM)
[quote="Toby Stumbo"] Saves you bar money but since you have a party every Sunday are you really saving money? :lol:[/quote] Yeah, it's not even close. :nodding: I don't have to pay for the "atmosphere" and at home, I get to be the bouncer without going to jail. :lol:

Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 2:27:31 AM)
[quote="Tim Cady"][quote="Todd Mallett"]That little pop up timer has to have gone off with Rodgers by now. Seems the bird is just going to be left in the oven to go stale now.[/quote] I actually think it has been the best thing that could have happened to him. Outside of money on first contract, which situation would you rather be in. Starting for the 9ers or backing up Farve in Green Bay? If Rodgers has what it takes he will have success similiar to Romo. You watch. I don't think it is completely bad backing up 3 or 4 years.[/quote] Yes sir, I entirely agree. I think it is a good chance some other team will reap the benefits of this "internship" much like Houston has with Schaub. Rodgers seems to have shown himself to be worth the investment the Packers made on him and they may realize it through moving Rodgers rather than paying him, in the near future/now. I don't think it will happen, but it's very possible. It is not a bad situation for the Pack to have put themselves in, regardless if Rodgers ever plays significant time for the Packers.

thebigo -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 3:17:20 AM)
[quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="Tim Cady"][quote="Todd Mallett"]That little pop up timer has to have gone off with Rodgers by now. Seems the bird is just going to be left in the oven to go stale now.[/quote] I actually think it has been the best thing that could have happened to him. Outside of money on first contract, which situation would you rather be in. Starting for the 9ers or backing up Farve in Green Bay? If Rodgers has what it takes he will have success similiar to Romo. You watch. I don't think it is completely bad backing up 3 or 4 years.[/quote] Yes sir, I entirely agree. I think it is a good chance some other team will reap the benefits of this "internship" much like Houston has with Schaub. Rodgers seems to have shown himself to be worth the investment the Packers made on him and they may realize it through moving Rodgers rather than paying him, in the near future/now. I don't think it will happen, but it's very possible. It is not a bad situation for the Pack to have put themselves in, regardless if Rodgers ever plays significant time for the Packers.[/quote] What did I miss? What has Rodgers done? I doubt the Packers could get more than a 4th round pick for him.

Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 5:02:37 AM)
[quote="thebigo"][quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="Tim Cady"][quote="Todd Mallett"]That little pop up timer has to have gone off with Rodgers by now. Seems the bird is just going to be left in the oven to go stale now.[/quote] I actually think it has been the best thing that could have happened to him. Outside of money on first contract, which situation would you rather be in. Starting for the 9ers or backing up Farve in Green Bay? If Rodgers has what it takes he will have success similiar to Romo. You watch. I don't think it is completely bad backing up 3 or 4 years.[/quote] Yes sir, I entirely agree. I think it is a good chance some other team will reap the benefits of this "internship" much like Houston has with Schaub. Rodgers seems to have shown himself to be worth the investment the Packers made on him and they may realize it through moving Rodgers rather than paying him, in the near future/now. I don't think it will happen, but it's very possible. It is not a bad situation for the Pack to have put themselves in, regardless if Rodgers ever plays significant time for the Packers.[/quote] What did I miss? What has Rodgers done? I doubt the Packers could get more than a 4th round pick for him.[/quote] bigo; You may be right. His apprenticeship as a 2nd string QB will be a benefit in the long run was the point I was agreeing with. I believe that the time spent as a back up will be fruitful for some team, as he's shown flashes at the very least, of ability to win IMHO. I like to see a QB get some time learning in the big time. I believe it is a positive for long term development.

Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 5:27:12 AM)
I think Rodgers has flashed enough to encourage the Packers, at the very least, to consider him and his experience as valuable, to a positive degree. The level of that value is the question, I imagine.

thebigo -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 5:34:25 AM)
[quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="thebigo"][quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="Tim Cady"][quote="Todd Mallett"]That little pop up timer has to have gone off with Rodgers by now. Seems the bird is just going to be left in the oven to go stale now.[/quote] I actually think it has been the best thing that could have happened to him. Outside of money on first contract, which situation would you rather be in. Starting for the 9ers or backing up Farve in Green Bay? If Rodgers has what it takes he will have success similiar to Romo. You watch. I don't think it is completely bad backing up 3 or 4 years.[/quote] Yes sir, I entirely agree. I think it is a good chance some other team will reap the benefits of this "internship" much like Houston has with Schaub. Rodgers seems to have shown himself to be worth the investment the Packers made on him and they may realize it through moving Rodgers rather than paying him, in the near future/now. I don't think it will happen, but it's very possible. It is not a bad situation for the Pack to have put themselves in, regardless if Rodgers ever plays significant time for the Packers.[/quote] What did I miss? What has Rodgers done? I doubt the Packers could get more than a 4th round pick for him.[/quote] bigo; You may be right. His apprenticeship as a 2nd string QB will be a benefit in the long run was the point I was agreeing with. I believe that the time spent as a back up will be fruitful for some team, as he's shown flashes at the very least, of ability to win IMHO. I like to see a QB get some time learning in the big time. I believe it is a positive for long term development.[/quote] In his 3 years, he is 17 for 33, 128 yards, 3.9 ypa, 0 TDs, 1 INT, 48.6 QBR. I'm still not seeing it. TJack has a higher QBR.

Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 5:47:01 AM)
I won't claim my argument a strong one statistically, but as a former #1 that has performed relatively well, I think he'll be a reasonably valuable commodity. Especially in a league lacking in quality play at QB. ' Tjack has had a few more "quality" snaps as well. #4

Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 6:01:13 AM)
#4 may have had something to do with that. The Great Viking QB Lottery might need another entrant! :whistling: No offense, bigo, a 4th rounder may be right, but I believe the pack would get more.

thebigo -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 6:32:47 AM)
[quote="Lane Meyer"]I won't claim my argument a strong one statistically, but as a former #1 that has performed relatively well, I think he'll be a reasonably valuable commodity. Especially in a league lacking in quality play at QB. ' Tjack has had a few more "quality" snaps as well. #4[/quote] 48.6 QBR = performing relatively well?

Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 6:59:51 AM)
[quote="thebigo"][quote="Lane Meyer"]I won't claim my argument a strong one statistically, but as a former #1 that has performed relatively well, I think he'll be a reasonably valuable commodity. Especially in a league lacking in quality play at QB. ' Tjack has had a few more "quality" snaps as well. #4[/quote] 48.6 QBR = performing relatively well?[/quote] Considering the small sample size and my own , ahem, expert opinion, yes. I've seen Rodgers play in the preseason which to this point is as good a measure as any. That is unless you've seen more of the man's play than I, bigo. The 48.6 you've referenced is a sampling so small, I really can't refute it's validity.

thebigo -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 7:05:25 AM)
[quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="thebigo"][quote="Lane Meyer"]I won't claim my argument a strong one statistically, but as a former #1 that has performed relatively well, I think he'll be a reasonably valuable commodity. Especially in a league lacking in quality play at QB. ' Tjack has had a few more "quality" snaps as well. #4[/quote] 48.6 QBR = performing relatively well?[/quote] Considering the small sample size and my own , ahem, expert opinion, yes. I've seen Rodgers play in the preseason which to this point is as good a measure as any. That is unless you've seen more of the man's play than I, bigo. The 48.6 you've referenced is a sampling so small, I really can't refute it's validity.[/quote] IMO Rodgers is a poor man's Joey Harrington. The Anti-Favre.

Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 7:11:48 AM)
[quote="thebigo"][quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="thebigo"][quote="Lane Meyer"]I won't claim my argument a strong one statistically, but as a former #1 that has performed relatively well, I think he'll be a reasonably valuable commodity. Especially in a league lacking in quality play at QB. ' Tjack has had a few more "quality" snaps as well. #4[/quote] 48.6 QBR = performing relatively well?[/quote] Considering the small sample size and my own , ahem, expert opinion, yes. I've seen Rodgers play in the preseason which to this point is as good a measure as any. That is unless you've seen more of the man's play than I, bigo. The 48.6 you've referenced is a sampling so small, I really can't refute it's validity.[/quote] IMO Rodgers is a poor man's Joey Harrington. The Anti-Favre.[/quote] You may be correct. At this point, the mystery regarding Rodger's long term viability as a NFL starting QB is an advantage for the Packers IMHO. Simply put, no one knows for sure and that helps GB, I believe. I may be wrong. At this point, do you believe that TJack would garner more in the way of trade value than A Rodgers?

thebigo -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 7:27:13 AM)
[quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="thebigo"][quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="thebigo"][quote="Lane Meyer"]I won't claim my argument a strong one statistically, but as a former #1 that has performed relatively well, I think he'll be a reasonably valuable commodity. Especially in a league lacking in quality play at QB. ' Tjack has had a few more "quality" snaps as well. #4[/quote] 48.6 QBR = performing relatively well?[/quote] Considering the small sample size and my own , ahem, expert opinion, yes. I've seen Rodgers play in the preseason which to this point is as good a measure as any. That is unless you've seen more of the man's play than I, bigo. The 48.6 you've referenced is a sampling so small, I really can't refute it's validity.[/quote] IMO Rodgers is a poor man's Joey Harrington. The Anti-Favre.[/quote] You may be correct. At this point, the mystery regarding Rodger's long term viability as a NFL starting QB is an advantage for the Packers IMHO. Simply put, no one knows for sure and that helps GB, I believe. I may be wrong. At this point, do you believe that TJack would garner more in the way of trade value than A Rodgers?[/quote] Probably about even. Rodgers has performed decently against backups in preseason games, but his regular season performance, though limited, is bad. T-Jack has been not good, but some of that is the bad/receiving corp. He's still green, but is more physically talented then Rodgers.

Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 7:38:16 AM)
My point is that there is a book, though limited on TJack, where very little exists on Rodgers. That fact is a plus where Rodgers is concerned, IMHO. TJack would not start for a team other than Chilly's team. I don't think NFL teams will be beating down the Packer's door for Rodgers, but TJack is no more attractive other than that he's started a few games and lost. Rodger's "unknown" factor is a factor in his favor IMHO.

Lane Meyer -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 7:49:04 AM)
Bigo, Rodgers was a 1st rd pick, #23 overall. The claim that TJack is more talented, is, at the very least, debatable, at least where NFL scouts were concerned.

John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 4:27:20 PM)
I see no reason for the Packers to trade Rodgers. Favre can't play more than another year or two. Rodgers has several years in their system learning - a la Tony Romo. This is the way it used to be. What age did guys like Staubach and THeisman take over? 26? It is far better to do it that way than to play a guy who clearly isn't ready. The only way they should trade him is if they see him in practice and decide that there are critical throws that he just can't make.

#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 5:10:17 PM)
[quote="Lane Meyer"]I think Rodgers has flashed enough to encourage the Packers, at the very least, to consider him and his experience as valuable, to a positive degree. The level of that value is the question, I imagine.[/quote] I agree. One, Rogers has looked solid in the pre-season when he has played. Two, he has "matured" as can be seen (and I'm merely theorizing here) from his attitude on the bench during games. He seems more relaxed and cheerful. No more comments in the press about his impatience. No more controversy over whether or not Brett mentors him. His mentoring is merely learning from Brett, watching him, etc. And finally, three, when Brett retires, barring injury or free agency desertions, Rogers will inherit one helluva team of WRs and a VG TE to throw to, which he may already be doing some in practice. I think it's the ideal situation for him. Look at how hard it is for many young QBs in this league (the Bradys and the Peyton Mannings notwithstanding). I'm sure he is chomping at the bit, but I hope he realizes this is a great scenario for him. Better this than coming in and having to resurrect a losing team. These are just opinions. I have nothing to back them up except that I personally haven't read anything in the last year about Aaron being unhappy with his role. I would think it's obvious that if he was unhappy, Green Bay wouldn't be throwing the dice as they are with NOT carrying a second backup QB

Guest -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 5:25:13 PM)
Year after year fans get excited about the play of a young QB in pre-season. Problem is it's the PRE-SEASON. Hell, Alex Smith and Tarvaris Jackson both looked good this pre-season.

#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 5:30:42 PM)
[quote="thebigo"][quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="thebigo"][quote="Lane Meyer"]I won't claim my argument a strong one statistically, but as a former #1 that has performed relatively well, I think he'll be a reasonably valuable commodity. Especially in a league lacking in quality play at QB. ' Tjack has had a few more "quality" snaps as well. #4[/quote] 48.6 QBR = performing relatively well?[/quote] Considering the small sample size and my own , ahem, expert opinion, yes. I've seen Rodgers play in the preseason which to this point is as good a measure as any. That is unless you've seen more of the man's play than I, bigo. The 48.6 you've referenced is a sampling so small, I really can't refute it's validity.[/quote] IMO Rodgers is a poor man's Joey Harrington. The Anti-Favre.[/quote] I have absolutely no idea what you are basing that statement on other than bias. His accumulative regular season stats may not be good, but those figures are based on coming in during mop-up time or for a series here and there if Brett is banged up. Here is a blurb from this year's first pre-season game against Pitsburgh: "Rodgers led the Packers on three consecutive scoring drives, one to close the first half and then two to open the second half. Using his legs to buy some time and find openings in the Pittsburgh secondary, he completed several throws from outside the pocket and finished 18-of-27 passing for 168 yards and one touchdown. " His QB rating was 95.9 by the way. Sounds pretty good to me. The next week against Seattle he was 10 of 16 for 97 yards and 2 TDs with a rating of 119 Following that, in limited action againts Jacksonville, 6 of 9 for 82, rating of 95.6 His only bad game was against the Titans but he only threw 7 passes in that game. Not much to get into a rhythm. I'm not saying he is the next big thing, but I won't judge him by snippets here and there in VERY limited action in real games. However, his mechanics and poise during this pre-season looked very good, IMO. I sincerely hope he stays and I look forward to rooting for him when takes over the reins.

#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:The Packers (11/24/2007 5:36:55 PM)
[quote="Pete C"]Year after year fans get excited about the play of a young QB in pre-season. Problem is it's the PRE-SEASON. Hell, Alex Smith and Tarvaris Jackson both looked good this pre-season.[/quote] Well consider the alternative, then. One, he looks horrid in the pre-season...or he doesn't play at all in the pre-season. Again, Rogers gets almost no real game playing time. What the hell are we supposed to evaluate him on? His looks? As one character said in ALIENS when instructed to shoulder their weapons, "What are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?" Seriously, yes, it's circumspect to judge how he will play in real games based on pre-season but do we just say "He sucks" and assume he does? Honestly. The man's mechanics, pocket presence, and comfort level looked good this year. I have no problem with throwing him into the fray should Brett go down. Hell, with this corps of receivers, he'd probably do really well. Time will tell, but honestly, I like his chances at success better than TJack's if for no other reason than TJack has NO ONE to learn from! Surely you can at least see the logic behind that, can't you????

Page: << < prev 24 25 [26] 27 28 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode