RE:The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/26/2007 10:33:46 PM)

Packers offense should come out very aggressive and start piling on the points early. Keep the ball out of Tony Romo's hands. Our time of possession has been a key this year, and can be a great tool for the upcoming game. Our defense is going to have to really shine. Everyone claims Harris is such a great player, but I'm not convinced. Romo and Owens make a powerful combo. Like another person said, Harris will have to play the game of his life. If we can beat these guys, I think we can make the Super Bowl.



David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (11/26/2007 11:13:36 PM)

NFL will not punish Packers players for 'bounty rule' violation



Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (11/26/2007 11:15:33 PM)

Of course not.



Tim Cady -> RE:The Packers (11/26/2007 11:46:10 PM)

[quote="Lynn G."][quote="Lane Meyer"] ... the biggest factor was the D and the inexplicable performance of Manning. [/quote] (My emphasis with the bolding). What's inexplicable? You said it yourself - the biggest factor was the D. Manning's poor performance was a direct result of what the Vikings' defense was doing. Similar to what they did in the San Diego game, they very adroitly disguised coverages and showed formations that confused Manning. They showed blitz but then backed into coverage. Other times, with the same formation - they DID blitz. Manning didn't know what to expect when he took the snap and it showed in the incompletions and interceptions. I just wonder where that defense was when we played at Lambeau.[/quote] I do too, Jeremy Green is the one of the only National guys, Ditka a little as well who have given the Vikings defense credit. One real positive for the offense, offensive line in particular- Tony Saragousa on the sideline pointed this out yesterday, that he could not tell if the Vikings were in Pass or run on offense, because the start of each play looks like a run regardless if it is.That makes a team tough to defend.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/26/2007 11:48:24 PM)

[quote="David Moufang"]NFL will not punish Packers players for 'bounty rule' violation[/quote] I love Kampan's quote " "It's pretty much all water under the dam." Um, I think it's a bridge Aaron. :lol: We may very well have our own version of Yogi Berra here.



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/27/2007 12:21:36 AM)

[quote="Lynn G."][quote="Lane Meyer"] ... the biggest factor was the D and the inexplicable performance of Manning. [/quote] (My emphasis with the bolding). What's inexplicable? You said it yourself - the biggest factor was the D. Manning's poor performance was a direct result of what the Vikings' defense was doing. Similar to what they did in the San Diego game, they very adroitly disguised coverages and showed formations that confused Manning. They showed blitz but then backed into coverage. Other times, with the same formation - they DID blitz. Manning didn't know what to expect when he took the snap and it showed in the incompletions and interceptions. I just wonder where that defense was when we played at Lambeau.[/quote] Yup, the Vikings caused those turnovers. These were not well thrown balls that bounced off the Giants WRs into Vikings DBs' hands. This defense is Jeckyll and Hyde for sure



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/27/2007 12:29:05 AM)

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="David Moufang"]NFL will not punish Packers players for 'bounty rule' violation[/quote] I love Kampan's quote " "It's pretty much all water under the dam." Um, I think it's a bridge Aaron. :lol: We may very well have our own version of Yogi Berra here.[/quote] Have you watched Emmitt Smith? A leopard doesn't change his stripes



#1 Bart Starr fan -> RE:The Packers (11/27/2007 2:54:31 AM)

[quote="John Childress"][quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="David Moufang"]NFL will not punish Packers players for 'bounty rule' violation[/quote] I love Kampan's quote " "It's pretty much all water under the dam." Um, I think it's a bridge Aaron. :lol: We may very well have our own version of Yogi Berra here.[/quote] Have you watched Emmitt Smith? A leopard doesn't change his stripes[/quote] Smith may be the worst of all the recent ex-players who now do commentary. The man is an idiot. Even the Bus is better...in fact, I kinda like him. Hell, Michael Irvin is better than Smith. Smith is a complete tool.



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/27/2007 3:30:07 AM)

These guys make Michael Irvin sound good! Irvin was ok except when he started pontificating - he of all people



Tim Cady -> RE:The Packers (11/27/2007 7:07:49 PM)

Emmitt Smith, just doesn't come across as having a clue on how to do this. The NFL network gave him a little tryout when he first retired and they didn't keep him long. I still don't like Steve Young either. I think he is a bright guy, but he hides it well. Irvin was least enjoyable commentator to me of anyone, ever! Keyshawn is a tool, but I enjoy him with Parcels. I think Robert Smith does a nice job. He supposedly got fired from NFL Network for supporting Moss on his once in a blue Moon article. Smith on crime, besides supporting Moss, was to admit to inhaling in college. Pretty ironic. Smith's disdain for Moss, was always considered a contribution to his decision to retire. Ironic. This is why I try to e-mail my disdain to theNFL. Regarding my offense to Ray Lewis commercials for the NFL Network. Fire a guy for admitting something, that virtually everyone has done, but continue to use an alleged Murderer as a poster boy. When is the NFL Network going to bring OJ in? Until his recent troubles, he was as not guilty as Ray Lewis. Rod Woodson, Terrel Davis and Marshall Faulk are all really good. I thought Lincoln Kennedy was awesome when the network first started. I can't believe I am going to say this, but I think Quadry Ismail does an alright job. Jeremy Green is pretty good as well and I am not saying this just because he gave the Vikings a little credit this week. I am really sick of Jaws and Kornholer. I think Mike Torico has improved as a playbyplay man, I really didn't like him doing MNF last year. I used to love Jaws, but him a Tony K. being buddies rubs me the wrong way, not saying I want Theisman back. I think the best MNF crew would be one that included Mike Myock. There was a Vikings preseason game this year, that had Myock, Michelle Tofoya and an unknown to me playbyplay guy. I think it was the Dallas preseason game and it was the most informative and enjoying broadcast of a football game that I have heard in years. If they are not ready for Michelle(a woman in the booth, whom I think is awesome) I would settle for replacing Kornhiser and Jaws with Myock and Coach Vermeil. Torico has improved enough that I don't think he is the reason that the the MNF coverage is unlistenable.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/27/2007 9:08:38 PM)

I miss Dan Fouts. That guy was so dead on with his analysis and comments. Too bad he got overshadowed with the Dennis Miller experiment. Who is he doing the announcing for now? Anyone know?



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/27/2007 11:07:05 PM)

I loved Fouts Miller was BRUTAL - worst ever I like Mark May and wish he would move up to the NFL Steve Young is not very articulate. He knows what he wants to say but he just can't get it out smoothly. ESPN needs to kill the whole Washington Post reject show of Korny and Wilpon. Those guys are terrible - Korn is the worst. Never put 3 in a booth. A smooth play by play person along with an analytical expert a la Hank Stram, Dan Fouts, etc. is all that is needed. Stop with the stories. The GB Dallas game will be painful to listen to! Enough about Favre, Romo, and Owens. There are actually other guys on the field who are playing and we want to learn about!!!



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/27/2007 11:24:45 PM)

No kidding. I'd rather hear about Jennings, Jones, Crayton & Jacques Reeves (both 7th rounders), the OL. Show something else. We all know about the big names.



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/27/2007 11:43:20 PM)

I want to know how you guys created a running game and how can we stop it! oh Too late



Tim Cady -> RE:The Packers (11/28/2007 1:33:00 AM)

His name is Ryan Grant and the Giants could have used him on Sunday. Nice pick up by the Packers. I have him on two fantasy teams and he got one team to the playoffs last week and the other team, where I have yet to play him, always has a starter that he outperforms. Sorry for the Fantasy reference, I should be ashamed to be happy with Packers. I admit, that fantasy perspective, while watching football makes me feel dirty at times. Ryan Grant, really does remind me of Dorsey Levins, not just the number, but that contributes.



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/28/2007 6:28:51 AM)

Crucify me for it if you want to (and you might after the game) but I see Dallas winning this game by at least 2 TD's and exposing Green Bay for what they are, not a great team, but a "solid" team in a REALLY bad conference/league. We will see.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (11/28/2007 4:19:51 PM)

[quote="djskilbr"]Crucify me for it if you want to (and you might after the game) but I see Dallas winning this game by at least 2 TD's and exposing Green Bay for what they are, not a great team, but a "solid" team in a REALLY bad conference/league. We will see.[/quote] So does that mean that if Dallas wins, they aren't that good either since the league is no good this year?



El Duderino -> RE:The Packers (11/28/2007 8:06:34 PM)

[quote="djskilbr"]Crucify me for it if you want to (and you might after the game) but I see Dallas winning this game by at least 2 TD's and exposing Green Bay for what they are, not a great team, but a "solid" team in a REALLY bad conference/league. We will see.[/quote] The numbers don't really bear that out, though. Someone posted a USA Today ranking that shows the NFC East as the best division, with the NFC North being #3. The AFC South (I believe) was #2. I don't remember the Packers strength of schedule, but I know ours was #3 overall. There likely isn't a huge difference, as they are identical except for the pack/vikes games and two non-common conference opponents (ours are San Francisco and Atlanta, GBs are Carolina and Saint Louis).



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/28/2007 8:34:30 PM)

quote:

DIVISION CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS 1 (NFC EAST) = 24.75 25.24 ( 1) 4 2 (afc south) = 22.83 23.11 ( 3) 4 3 (NFC NORTH) = 22.74 23.19 ( 2) 4 4 (afc east) = 19.10 20.98 ( 4) 4 5 (afc west) = 18.72 19.03 ( 5) 4 6 (afc north) = 18.51 18.45 ( 6) 4 7 (NFC SOUTH) = 15.76 16.24 ( 7) 4 8 (NFC WEST) = 13.58 13.76 ( 8) 4
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl07.htm
quote:

1 New England Patriots = 40.82 11 0 2 Dallas Cowboys = 33.15 10 1 3 Indianapolis Colts = 30.47 9 2 4 Green Bay Packers = 29.22 10 1 5 San Diego Chargers = 25.09 6 5 6 Jacksonville Jaguars = 24.69 8 3 7 New York Giants = 24.64 7 4 8 Pittsburgh Steelers = 23.38 8 3 9 Philadelphia Eagles = 22.91 5 6 10 Tampa Bay Buccaneers = 22.05 7 4 11 Minnesota Vikings = 21.94 5 6 12 Detroit Lions = 21.76 6 5 13 Cleveland Browns = 20.56 7 4 14 Washington Redskins = 20.25 5 6 15 Chicago Bears = 19.85 5 6 16 Tennessee Titans = 19.83 6 5 17 Seattle Seahawks = 19.58 7 4 18 Denver Broncos = 18.98 5 6 19 Houston Texans = 17.46 5 6 20 Buffalo Bills = 17.39 5 6 21 Kansas City Chiefs = 17.22 4 7 22 Cincinnati Bengals = 16.67 4 7 23 Arizona Cardinals = 16.26 5 6 24 New Orleans Saints = 16.01 5 6 25 Oakland Raiders = 14.84 3 8 26 Carolina Panthers = 13.59 4 7 27 Atlanta Falcons = 13.32 3 8 28 New York Jets = 13.29 2 9 29 Baltimore Ravens = 13.20 4 7 30 Miami Dolphins = 12.40 0 11 31 San Francisco 49ers = 10.21 3 8 32 St. Louis Rams = 8.98 2 9
Click the link for explanations Some of the teams with good records haven't played anyone



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/28/2007 8:43:29 PM)

[quote="El Duderino"][quote="djskilbr"]Crucify me for it if you want to (and you might after the game) but I see Dallas winning this game by at least 2 TD's and exposing Green Bay for what they are, not a great team, but a "solid" team in a REALLY bad conference/league. We will see.[/quote] The numbers don't really bear that out, though. Someone posted a USA Today ranking that shows the NFC East as the best division, with the NFC North being #3. The AFC South (I believe) was #2. I don't remember the Packers strength of schedule, but I know ours was #3 overall. There likely isn't a huge difference, as they are identical except for the pack/vikes games and two non-common conference opponents (ours are San Francisco and Atlanta, GBs are Carolina and Saint Louis).[/quote] I don't care about numbers too much in this case. From what I've seen the level of play has been atrocious this year.



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/28/2007 8:44:17 PM)

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="djskilbr"]Crucify me for it if you want to (and you might after the game) but I see Dallas winning this game by at least 2 TD's and exposing Green Bay for what they are, not a great team, but a "solid" team in a REALLY bad conference/league. We will see.[/quote] So does that mean that if Dallas wins, they aren't that good either since the league is no good this year?[/quote] Dallas isn't a stellar team. They're a "good" team to me, but nothing more. And they're easily the class of the NFC in my mind. That's saying something. Just a really bad year, outside of the Pats of course. Just like college ball this year. Just my two cents. It's honestly not meant to be some slam on the Packers or something. I just think the level of play is really down this year.



John Childress -> RE:The Packers (11/28/2007 9:13:56 PM)

the myth of the AFC being so great has been exposed The 5-6 Eagles gave the Pats all they could handle Dallas and GB can easily beat every other AFC team than the Pats. And if the Pats play in bad weather GB might give them a run with this new RB.



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/28/2007 9:19:00 PM)

[quote="John Childress"]the myth of the AFC being so great has been exposed The 5-6 Eagles gave the Pats all they could handle Dallas and GB can easily beat every other AFC team than the Pats. And if the Pats play in bad weather GB might give them a run with this new RB.[/quote] The whole league's weak, not just the NFC. The Pats are 2 td's better than any other team. I don't base things on one bad game against the Uggles. They'll beat Dallas in the SuperBowl by 30.



Andy Lowe -> RE:The Packers (11/28/2007 9:20:09 PM)

[quote="djskilbr"][quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="djskilbr"]Crucify me for it if you want to (and you might after the game) but I see Dallas winning this game by at least 2 TD's and exposing Green Bay for what they are, not a great team, but a "solid" team in a REALLY bad conference/league. We will see.[/quote] So does that mean that if Dallas wins, they aren't that good either since the league is no good this year?[/quote] Dallas isn't a stellar team. They're a "good" team to me, but nothing more. And they're easily the class of the NFC in my mind. That's saying something. Just a really bad year, outside of the Pats of course. Just like college ball this year. Just my two cents. It's honestly not meant to be some slam on the Packers or something. I just think the level of play is really down this year.[/quote] In true sense of the word, there are no "great" teams in the NFL right now. With FA, I don't believe there will be either. Which goes back to my whole point of getting rid of this ridiculous salary cap system. I like the cap, but give teams credit for signing their own veterans. Get rid of this mediocre stuff.



djskillz -> RE:The Packers (11/28/2007 9:24:54 PM)

Agreed Andy. The NBA salary cap has its flaws but something like the Larry Bird exception might be the best for the NFL. Allow teams to keep guys so that you have a "team" but not exactly equal.



Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode