RE:The Packers

RE:The Packers (Full Version)

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

Message

Jake Carlson -> RE:The Packers (9/11/2007 2:49:01 AM)
[quote="John Childress"][quote="Jake Carlson"]Wow, with Eli out for at least 4 games or so, the Giants are out of the race already!!![/quote] I was listening to NYC radio on the way home and there is another report that says he will play this week.[/quote] Who knows?! ESPN just claimed he's out "at least a month". Personally, I hope he plays next week against the Pack. Based on last night's performance, I'd rather have an injured Eli over a full strength Lorenzen, otherwise it's a gimme for the Pack.

Easy E -> RE:The Packers (9/11/2007 3:00:10 AM)
[quote="Jake Carlson"][quote="John Childress"][quote="Jake Carlson"]Wow, with Eli out for at least 4 games or so, the Giants are out of the race already!!![/quote] I was listening to NYC radio on the way home and there is another report that says he will play this week.[/quote] Who knows?! ESPN just claimed he's out "at least a month". Personally, I hope he plays next week against the Pack. Based on last night's performance, I'd rather have an injured Eli over a full strength Lorenzen, otherwise it's a gimme for the Pack.[/quote] This is probably mean, but I literally could not beleive they let that guy on the field. It was embarrasing, he was horrible.

Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (9/11/2007 6:02:15 AM)
[rolling dice] Come on Lorenzen... Pack needs to go 2-0 [/rolling dice]

Jake Carlson -> RE:The Packers (9/11/2007 6:16:55 PM)
[quote="Easy E"][quote="Jake Carlson"][quote="John Childress"][quote="Jake Carlson"]Wow, with Eli out for at least 4 games or so, the Giants are out of the race already!!![/quote] I was listening to NYC radio on the way home and there is another report that says he will play this week.[/quote] Who knows?! ESPN just claimed he's out "at least a month". Personally, I hope he plays next week against the Pack. Based on last night's performance, I'd rather have an injured Eli over a full strength Lorenzen, otherwise it's a gimme for the Pack.[/quote] This is probably mean, but I literally could not beleive they let that guy on the field. It was embarrasing, he was horrible.[/quote] It amazes me that the guy is a #2 QB in the NFL.

John Childress -> RE:The Packers (9/11/2007 7:42:08 PM)
Hear Umenora is out for several weeks Sounds like Eli is also out but the Giants want to scare the Packers! The Giants are done without Eli. They may not win another game until he comes back.

Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (9/11/2007 9:52:39 PM)
[quote="John Childress"]Hear Umenora is out for several weeks Sounds like Eli is also out but the Giants want to scare the Packers! The Giants are done without Eli. They may not win another game until he comes back.[/quote] I'll believe it when I see Eli on the sidelines. I have a feeling they are going to label him as questionable just to mess with opposing teams until he's ready to come back. If Lorenzen is in there, he's a sitting duck for the pass rush. We chased McNabb often in the last game and Lorenzen has nowhere near that mobility. The dropoff at QB to him in NY is astonishing.

John Childress -> RE:The Packers (9/11/2007 10:24:27 PM)
If Lorenzen is in there....4 sacks for Kampman 2 for Barnett on blitzes

Jake Carlson -> RE:The Packers (9/11/2007 11:43:07 PM)
If Manning is truly out for several weeks and they're busy trying to keep it a secret instead of shopping for a free agent or a trade, they're complete morons. There is no way that a team can go into a game with confidence in Lorenzen, especially with the Giants' pathetic D!! Craig, there's not a doubt that you will be a happy 2-0 if Lorenzen starts!!

Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (9/12/2007 4:37:53 AM)
I hope so, don't want to count it too quickly... we are the Packers after all. :D

Duane Sampson -> RE:The Packers (9/15/2007 4:30:09 PM)
Koren Robinson Applies for Reinstatement, But... The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports suspended Green Bay Packers WR Koren Robinson has submitted his application for reinstatement to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, but it will be at least five weeks before he'll know whether he can resume his career, his agent said Thursday. Robinson can't be reinstated before Oct. 17, the date last year in which Roger Goodell ruled against the wide receiver. Alvin Keels, Robinson's representative, said his client was eligible to reapply for reinstatement 60 days before Oct. 17, the anniversary of the start of his one-year suspension. Robinson filled out the paperwork and is working out in Phoenix while he waits for the National Football League to review his case. "He has reapplied," Keels said Thursday. "You apply with the commissioner and he has a meeting with all the doctors to determine whether he has been in full compliance. Then he makes a decision from there." Robinson was first notified of his suspension for violation of the NFL's substance-abuse program last Sept. 18, but was able to continue playing during an appeal process. Goodell ruled against Robinson on Oct. 17, five days before the Packers were to play at Miami. Thus, he can't be reinstated before that date. The suspension stemmed from multiple alcohol-related arrests, the last a traffic violation that occurred Aug. 15, 2006, in Mankato, Minn., while Robinson was a member of the Minnesota Vikings. Robinson led police on a high-speed chase on his way back to training camp and after finally being pulled over was charged with having a blood-alcohol level of 0.11, above the Minnesota legal limit of 0.08.

David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (9/16/2007 7:04:15 PM)
Does anyone know why the Packers game is not on KMSP Fox 9? They're showing some infomercial garbage. It used to be that if the Packers were playing at a different time than the Vikings, the Packers would be broadcast. Did the NFL change the rules again?

thebigo -> RE:The Packers (9/16/2007 8:20:15 PM)
[quote="David Moufang"]Does anyone know why the Packers game is not on KMSP Fox 9? They're showing some infomercial garbage. It used to be that if the Packers were playing at a different time than the Vikings, the Packers would be broadcast. Did the NFL change the rules again?[/quote] By what logic would a Packer game be shown in the Vikings market? I mean what would be the logic to pick it over, say, the Colts vs. Titans? To breed another generation of paint thinner swilling Packer fans in the Vikes market?

David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (9/16/2007 8:34:13 PM)
[quote="thebigo"][quote="David Moufang"]Does anyone know why the Packers game is not on KMSP Fox 9? They're showing some infomercial garbage. It used to be that if the Packers were playing at a different time than the Vikings, the Packers would be broadcast. Did the NFL change the rules again?[/quote] By what logic would a Packer game be shown in the Vikings market? I mean what would be the logic to pick it over, say, the Colts vs. Titans? To breed another generation of paint thinner swilling Packer fans in the Vikes market?[/quote] Umm...well, for one thing, the are a LOT of Packers fans in the Twin Cities. Second, wouldn't a lot of Vikings fans like to watch the Packers game (presumably to root against them)? I'm gonna watch at least some of the Vikings game today because I hope they choke. Third, Fox used to show both the early and late games each Sunday. And if the Packers and Vikings were playing at different times, they would usually both be broadcast. Apparently the NFL has changed the rules again. They're only showing one Fox game this week. Here's the map: http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/2007-02-FOX.html Despite the fact that there's serious money to be made by showing both games, Fox affiliates prefer to show either infomercials, or better yet, bullfighting. Because who wouldn't rather watch bullfighting than an NFL game? No one gains by Fox showing infomercials instead of the Packers game.

Chris Olson -> RE:The Packers (9/16/2007 9:00:21 PM)
That infomercial crap is the lowest form of punishment to a sports fan...I don't understand it at all...you're telling me that people watch these infomercials MORE than a football game? They do that on Saturdays out here in NY... Why wouldn't Vikings fans want to "scout" their opponents? they play the pack twice and the Giants once...I am very interested in this game... The Packers OL is horrible at run blocking...they are just surviving against a bad NYG defense in pass pro...but they can't run worth a crap...methinks we should be able to shut their offense down...their vaunted defense isn't looking too spectacular to me either...

Easy E -> RE:The Packers (9/16/2007 9:07:59 PM)
[quote="David Moufang"][quote="thebigo"][quote="David Moufang"]Does anyone know why the Packers game is not on KMSP Fox 9? They're showing some infomercial garbage. It used to be that if the Packers were playing at a different time than the Vikings, the Packers would be broadcast. Did the NFL change the rules again?[/quote] By what logic would a Packer game be shown in the Vikings market? I mean what would be the logic to pick it over, say, the Colts vs. Titans? To breed another generation of paint thinner swilling Packer fans in the Vikes market?[/quote] Umm...well, for one thing, the are a LOT of Packers fans in the Twin Cities. Second, wouldn't a lot of Vikings fans like to watch the Packers game (presumably to root against them)? I'm gonna watch at least some of the Vikings game today because I hope they choke. Third, Fox used to show both the early and late games each Sunday. And if the Packers and Vikings were playing at different times, they would usually both be broadcast. Apparently the NFL has changed the rules again. They're only showing one Fox game this week. Here's the map: http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/2007-02-FOX.html Despite the fact that there's serious money to be made by showing both games, Fox affiliates prefer to show either infomercials, or better yet, bullfighting. Because who wouldn't rather watch bullfighting than an NFL game? No one gains by Fox showing infomercials instead of the Packers game.[/quote] I think you're blaming the wrong entity. The NFL is hell bent to make people pay for their packages, direct TV, etc. Guess I don't know for sure, but I bet if they were allowed, Fox would show as many football games as possible. Even the Packers.

David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (9/16/2007 9:15:31 PM)
[quote="Easy E"][quote="David Moufang"][quote="thebigo"][quote="David Moufang"]Does anyone know why the Packers game is not on KMSP Fox 9? They're showing some infomercial garbage. It used to be that if the Packers were playing at a different time than the Vikings, the Packers would be broadcast. Did the NFL change the rules again?[/quote] By what logic would a Packer game be shown in the Vikings market? I mean what would be the logic to pick it over, say, the Colts vs. Titans? To breed another generation of paint thinner swilling Packer fans in the Vikes market?[/quote] Umm...well, for one thing, the are a LOT of Packers fans in the Twin Cities. Second, wouldn't a lot of Vikings fans like to watch the Packers game (presumably to root against them)? I'm gonna watch at least some of the Vikings game today because I hope they choke. Third, Fox used to show both the early and late games each Sunday. And if the Packers and Vikings were playing at different times, they would usually both be broadcast. Apparently the NFL has changed the rules again. They're only showing one Fox game this week. Here's the map: http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/2007-02-FOX.html Despite the fact that there's serious money to be made by showing both games, Fox affiliates prefer to show either infomercials, or better yet, bullfighting. Because who wouldn't rather watch bullfighting than an NFL game? No one gains by Fox showing infomercials instead of the Packers game.[/quote] I think you're blaming the wrong entity. The NFL is hell bent to make people pay for their packages, direct TV, etc. Guess I don't know for sure, but I bet if they were allowed, Fox would show as many football games as possible. Even the Packers.[/quote] Yes I agree. It's an NFL thing, not Fox. But why should I pay for something that used to be free? I remember when I was little -- we'd watch the Packers and the Vikings at the same time -- and they weren't playing each other. We'd set up two TVs in the same room and watch them both. Now, unless they're playing each other, that is virtually impossible. In fact, all radio broadcasts of NFL games used to be free online. I could at least listen to the Packers game. Now I have to turn on my bathroom radio really loud because it's the only one that can receive the River Falls station. Why should I fork over $100 in addition to the normal DirecTV charges? I'm not going to sign up for DirecTV just to watch a three-hour game 14 times a year. Futhermore, I only want to watch one team. I don't care about the other 14 games on Sunday. Colts v Titans? Couldn't care less. With the whole Big Ten Network debacle, there's going to be a fan backlash eventually. I don't care about college football, but I'm kind of glad Comcast hasn't given in, just like when Carl Pohlad attempted to become the Yankees with his "Victory Sports" network.

Ray Peterson -> RE:The Packers (9/16/2007 9:54:12 PM)
[quote="David Moufang"][quote="Easy E"][quote="David Moufang"][quote="thebigo"][quote="David Moufang"]Does anyone know why the Packers game is not on KMSP Fox 9? They're showing some infomercial garbage. It used to be that if the Packers were playing at a different time than the Vikings, the Packers would be broadcast. Did the NFL change the rules again?[/quote] By what logic would a Packer game be shown in the Vikings market? I mean what would be the logic to pick it over, say, the Colts vs. Titans? To breed another generation of paint thinner swilling Packer fans in the Vikes market?[/quote] Umm...well, for one thing, the are a LOT of Packers fans in the Twin Cities. Second, wouldn't a lot of Vikings fans like to watch the Packers game (presumably to root against them)? I'm gonna watch at least some of the Vikings game today because I hope they choke. Third, Fox used to show both the early and late games each Sunday. And if the Packers and Vikings were playing at different times, they would usually both be broadcast. Apparently the NFL has changed the rules again. They're only showing one Fox game this week. Here's the map: http://www.the506.com/nflmaps/2007-02-FOX.html Despite the fact that there's serious money to be made by showing both games, Fox affiliates prefer to show either infomercials, or better yet, bullfighting. Because who wouldn't rather watch bullfighting than an NFL game? No one gains by Fox showing infomercials instead of the Packers game.[/quote] I think you're blaming the wrong entity. The NFL is hell bent to make people pay for their packages, direct TV, etc. Guess I don't know for sure, but I bet if they were allowed, Fox would show as many football games as possible. Even the Packers.[/quote] Yes I agree. It's an NFL thing, not Fox. But why should I pay for something that used to be free? I remember when I was little -- we'd watch the Packers and the Vikings at the same time -- and they weren't playing each other. We'd set up two TVs in the same room and watch them both. Now, unless they're playing each other, that is virtually impossible. In fact, all radio broadcasts of NFL games used to be free online. I could at least listen to the Packers game. Now I have to turn on my bathroom radio really loud because it's the only one that can receive the River Falls station. Why should I fork over $100 in addition to the normal DirecTV charges? I'm not going to sign up for DirecTV just to watch a three-hour game 14 times a year. Futhermore, I only want to watch one team. I don't care about the other 14 games on Sunday. Colts v Titans? Couldn't care less. With the whole Big Ten Network debacle, there's going to be a fan backlash eventually. I don't care about college football, but I'm kind of glad Comcast hasn't given in, just like when Carl Pohlad attempted to become the Yankees with his "Victory Sports" network.[/quote] Well, this ones almost over, but for next week go to http://www.myp2p.eu/NFL.htm and you can get the Sopcast TV broadcast free over p2p. Have to download the sopcast player first. Pack has looked really good in the second half, Favre has 3 TD passes, we forced another fumble on a NY kickoff return and then converted it to a touchdown... love these special teams. Now if we can just get the running game going...

Chris Olson -> RE:The Packers (9/16/2007 9:58:37 PM)
Don't let the score and stats fool you...the Packers soundly defeated the Giants, but they are a very flawed team...they have zero running game, and their passing game is full of those remarkably lucky last second completions...against the Giants HORRIBLE defensive backfield... it reminds me of us last year against the Pack...a half step from sack after sack, only to see Favre make that ridiculous completion... I think the giants and packers games are wins this year...

David Moufang -> RE:The Packers (9/16/2007 10:00:39 PM)
[quote="Ray Peterson"] Well, this ones almost over, but for next week go to http://www.myp2p.eu/NFL.htm and you can get the Sopcast TV broadcast free over p2p. Have to download the sopcast player first. Pack has looked really good in the second half, Favre has 3 TD passes, we forced another fumble on a NY kickoff return and then converted it to a touchdown... love these special teams. Now if we can just get the running game going...[/quote] I've read about Sopcast. But what's the player like? I don't trust p2p software; it's always been laced with spyware.

Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (9/16/2007 10:44:45 PM)
[quote="Chris Olson"]Don't let the score and stats fool you...the Packers soundly defeated the Giants, but they are a very flawed team...they have zero running game, and their passing game is full of those remarkably lucky last second completions...against the Giants HORRIBLE defensive backfield... it reminds me of us last year against the Pack...a half step from sack after sack, only to see Favre make that ridiculous completion... I think the giants and packers games are wins this year...[/quote] If those last second completions keep happening over and over, I think they can't be called lucky. :D The Packers running game was bloody awful for the majority of the game. Some nice big runs by Wynn make the numbers look better than they were. He's got great vision, a great burst and is a real good cutback RB. We may have found a good player there. The pass protection was very good in the 2nd half and Favre simply ate up the Giants secondary. He has gotten the confidence back with the TE's and RB's and the offense was just amazing. The defense was good enough in the first half, but the pass rush wasn't there for a good part of the game. They were able to bring it all throughout the 4th Q and started laying the wood on the Giants. Shockey ate us up though as our LB pass coverage simply stinks against athletic TEs. I don't think either the Pack or the Vikes can call their games against each other as gimmie wins. Both have solid defenses, but have flawed offenses as well.

Ray Peterson -> RE:The Packers (9/16/2007 11:19:49 PM)
[quote="David Moufang"][quote="Ray Peterson"] Well, this ones almost over, but for next week go to http://www.myp2p.eu/NFL.htm and you can get the Sopcast TV broadcast free over p2p. Have to download the sopcast player first. Pack has looked really good in the second half, Favre has 3 TD passes, we forced another fumble on a NY kickoff return and then converted it to a touchdown... love these special teams. Now if we can just get the running game going...[/quote] I've read about Sopcast. But what's the player like? I don't trust p2p software; it's always been laced with spyware.[/quote] The player is pretty good. I used it all last year without any problems - as did my son - poor college kid who wouldn't pay the outrageous cable subscription fees - so he watched quite a few games using it. His evaluation was it was very "watchable" - and the price is right. I use it as well for the games broadcast on the NFL Network since Charter doesn't carry that channel.. I'm not aware of any spyware issues with the player at all.

Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (9/17/2007 3:13:07 AM)
As for the Fox broadcast - it has to do with whether or not they're awarded the double header for that week. When they aren't, they have to show only one game. No doubt there is a market for Packer games here. So many Wisconsin residents move to the Twin Cities to raise their families, which we think is cool.

Cheesehead Craig -> RE:The Packers (9/20/2007 11:27:30 PM)
I almost view this game as a Catch 22 for the Packers. If they beat the Chargers, it will simply be excused that the Chargers aren't that good this year and coming off of flying to NE last week affected them. If they lose to the Chargers, the Pack will be labeled as pretenders and that they can't hang with the elite teams.

Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (9/20/2007 11:36:35 PM)
I see Brett Favre is still trying to keep himself relevant. He gave the media more fodder to bash him if they have the cajones to do it. I just heard on Around the Horn that Favre chimed in on Kitna going back into the game after being held out for a concussion. According to Favre, it was irresponsible to let him back in, or for Kitna to want to go back in, until he's had 24 hours to be evaluated (paraphrasing here because I didn't hear the exact quote). Hypocrisy thy name is Brett Favre. This from a guy who has admitted to playing with injuries that he says he shouldn't have. A guy who came into a game two seasons ago after a concussion, ran past Mike Sherman and called a play in the huddle - admitting later that he didn't even know what down it was! Several years ago, the divine Favre went back into a game after throwing up blood on the sidelines. Many Packer fans on the board I used to visit pointed to that moment with immense pride, saying that it showed what a tough guy he was. I countered by saying it showed what a lousy training staff they had. And why is he chiming in on another team's business? He's done it before, of course. He went public with criticism of the Titans and how they went about the contract with Steve McNair, but when McNabb opined that Favre was wrong to publicly berate Javon Walker about threatening a hold-out - Favre's response was that McNabb shouldn't be talking about another team's business. Why does Favre always consider himself an exception to rules? He's becoming such an old curmudgeon.

Lynn G. -> RE:The Packers (9/20/2007 11:41:28 PM)
Craig, apparently I was typing my rant while you typed your post. I think that if the Packers beat the Chargers they'll be respected in the way that a team that starts 3-0 should be. If they lose, I think it will be viewed as a better team beating a lesser team, and if you go by the way each team finished last year that would be an accurate reading. Of course, if they lose I will just say it's because my friend Mark from Madison brought out the karma gods by doing a nanny nanny boo boo to me after last weekend. ;)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode