RE: RE:The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/26/2009 4:20:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tim Cady

I agree Craig great draft, I just am not sure how Kampman fits in.

I think he is not an End in the 3-4 and I don't see him playing standing up. So maybe we just could ship a 7th rounder over to ya for him, so you know you could have something to show for switching defenses and eliminating what was your best defender...[:'(]

Kampy is not an end in the 3-4 that is true.  He's a smart player and I think after some adjustment he'll be just fine at OLB.  Passing situations he'll be tested in when he has to cover, but they can simply move him around and have him be the blitzing OLB.  He's not eliminated by any stretch from the defense.  Capers will find a way to use him quite well I'm sure.  I don't think we'll take that offer of a 7th from you though, generous as it was.  Sorry. [;)]



Tim Cady -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/26/2009 7:37:46 PM)

Ok, put Thompson on the phone if you are going to be that way about it.






[sm=club.gif]



Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/26/2009 8:36:17 PM)

{self deleted}



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/26/2009 11:23:32 PM)

Kampman for Peppers?

Can't see Kampman in a 3-4



Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/27/2009 1:58:59 PM)

Whoa - this was in Peter King's column:
quote:


• Green Bay. B.J. Raji's the best anchor for a 3-4 in this draft. I don't trust Clay Matthews, but we'll see. Why? He walked onto the USC campus weighing 161 pounds. Is his frame fine, adding 80 pounds in such a short time?


How does a guy add 80 pounds in any kind of healthy way. Is that number accurate?



Duane Sampson -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/27/2009 2:14:14 PM)

My buddy lost 140 lbs last weekend. [:'(]



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/27/2009 2:15:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

My buddy lost 140 lbs last weekend. [:'(]


Got a divorce?



Duane Sampson -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/27/2009 2:15:53 PM)

Yep! [&:]

They split the house 50/50 - he got the outside. [&:]



Tim Cady -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/27/2009 2:43:14 PM)

Justin Harrel

Craig?

Opinion, lot of money to sit on the bench, can he be an end in the 3-4? Or is Green Bay going to be forced to cut him? Depending on salary, I am guessing they are in the same boat as Denver with Jarvis Moss. Nobody probably wants in a trade, but teams would sign as a free agent for a salary more reflective of production.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/27/2009 8:20:11 PM)

One of the things that was interesting that Capers said was that when he looked at JH when he came out of college was that he looked to be best at DE for a 3-4.  So they are looking at JH starting opposite of Jenkins at the DE spot.  He's not going to be traded, not a chance.  Rumor is that he's pretty pumped at the move and maybe we'll finally start seeing some production out of him this year.
 
As for Matthews and the weight gain, I was 6'1" 160 going into college and graduated 6'4" 195 and I wasn't even working out anywhere near as much as Clay was.  Plus, I've seen different reports on his weight entering USC.  I've only seen that as a junior in HS he weighed 166 and I would bet that if he was so determined to play at USC he would have bulked up at least 25-30 lbs his senior year.  No way USC would have taken a kid who was 166 lbs as a LB, regardless of who his dad was.  I'm more inclined to believe the stories that he was just over 200 lbs when he entered USC.  So the weight gain is a non-issue for me and I think it's a bit exaggerated.



Jeff Jesser -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/28/2009 10:06:17 AM)

I mentioned it on another thread.  It's not hard to put on weight like that.  Especially considering he would have had access to a nutritionist and the best workout equipment money could buy.  Believe me, if we knew the amount of calories those guys put down a day it would  look sickening.   Think of it this way:


300 calories a day increase over your maintenance level will give you an added 1 lb a week.  Times that by 52 and you can easily see how it's possible.  Athletes like that, who are bulking, would probably take in 2000 calories is raw protein alone in a day (and I'm guessing much more). 



Easy E -> RE: RE:The Packers (4/29/2009 10:19:21 AM)

quote:

So the weight gain is a non-issue for me and I think it's a bit exaggerated.
 
In the football world, it's relative and not that bad. In reality, the things they have players, especially linemen, do to their bodies is severely unhealthy and damages them for life.



thebigo -> RE: RE:The Packers (5/1/2009 9:27:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser

I mentioned it on another thread.  It's not hard to put on weight like that.  Especially considering he would have had access to a nutritionist and the best workout equipment money could buy.  Believe me, if we knew the amount of calories those guys put down a day it would  look sickening.   Think of it this way:


300 calories a day increase over your maintenance level will give you an added 1 lb a week.  Times that by 52 and you can easily see how it's possible.  Athletes like that, who are bulking, would probably take in 2000 calories is raw protein alone in a day (and I'm guessing much more). 


500 calories and it's a deal.



marty -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/7/2009 9:28:28 AM)

My sources tell me that the Packer defense is dominating at their camp, which is a little surprising since they are going to a totally new scheme.

Aaron Kampmann is making plays all over the place, but he did get beat by Finley deep.  That may just be what Kampmann is like in the 3-4, dominant unless you burn him deep.  Will the Vikes TRY to burn him deep ?  Also, Finley has looked outstanding at TE, and MIGHT unseat Lee in the near future, but Lee is a better blocker, so it's kind of a nice 1-2 punch, just like Kleinsasser/Shiancoe.

The Packer defense might just need to be mediocre to take the division, if they are good, they might be the best team in the NFC, the most balanced.  Charles Woodson has looked REALLY good, age is NO factor for him.  Al Harris can still be a liability, you just have to put a physical WR on him, or burn him deep.

They were expecting a big year out of Jordy Nelson, but I heard that WR James Jones has looked really sharp and might solidfy his spot as a #3 on a team that is well stocked at WR. 
                                   
Barnett hasn't even been playing, but his replacement is doing well in his place.  I expect the defense will be even better when Barnett returns.  I also heard that one player that is really standing out is AJ Hawk, he loves the 3-4, feels at home, and really wants to prove himself.

The good news is Raji isn't signed, Collins is holding out, there are some injuries on the OL and Mike McCarthy is still the HC.

         




                                     



TheGonz -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/7/2009 9:35:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

My sources tell me that the Packer defense is dominating at their camp, which is a little surprising since they are going to a totally new scheme.

Aaron Kampmann is making plays all over the place, but he did get beat by Finley deep.  That may just be what Kampmann is like in the 3-4, dominant unless you burn him deep.  Will the Vikes TRY to burn him deep ?  Also, Finley has looked outstanding at TE, and MIGHT unseat Lee in the near future, but Lee is a better blocker, so it's kind of a nice 1-2 punch, just like Kleinsasser/Shiancoe.

The Packer defense might just need to be mediocre to take the division, if they are good, they might be the best team in the NFC, the most balanced.  Charles Woodson has looked REALLY good, age is NO factor for him.  Al Harris can still be a liability, you just have to put a physical WR on him, or burn him deep.

They were expecting a big year out of Jordy Nelson, but I heard that WR James Jones has looked really sharp and might solidfy his spot as a #3 on a team that is well stocked at WR. 
                                  
Barnett hasn't even been playing, but his replacement is doing well in his place.  I expect the defense will be even better when Barnett returns.  I also heard that one player that is really standing out is AJ Hawk, he loves the 3-4, feels at home, and really wants to prove himself.

The good news is Raji isn't signed, Collins is holding out, there are some injuries on the OL and Mike McCarthy is still the HC.                         

Has the defense tried stopping Adrian Peterson?  Because, if I recall, they were really crappy at that last year.



Jeff Jesser -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/7/2009 10:43:59 AM)

That and all defenses are always ahead of offenses this early in camp.  Plus, GB sucks.



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/7/2009 11:56:54 AM)

I always hate when coaches come in and install a scheme that doesn't fit the players.  We were not a WCO team personnel wise for 3 years but that didn't stop Bard.

Kampman is not a 3-4 defensive player.

Dumb



thebigo -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/7/2009 10:38:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

I always hate when coaches come in and install a scheme that doesn't fit the players.  We were not a WCO team personnel wise for 3 years but that didn't stop Bard.

Kampman is not a 3-4 defensive player.

Dumb


You can't really blame Capers though. That's his system, it is Ted Thompson that hired him, Thompson had to know Capers would install the 3-4



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/17/2009 1:17:31 PM)

Preseason game 1 is in the books for the Packers and things overall looked pretty good.
 
The defense pitched a shutout which even though it's preseason is pretty impressive.  I was unable to watch the game myself but from what I gathered from other Packers fans that did see it was that the defense was flying around all over and there were lots of real good plays made.  Lots of pressure and several INTs.  So far so good with that unit.  Glad to see Raji got signed and he'll likely miss the next preseason game as well, but at least his holdout didn't go into the regular season. 
 
The offense did well as Rodgers led the Pack to 2 scoring drives on his 2 drives for the game.  Sweet.  The OL did a very nice job in both run and pass blocking.  FB Quinn Johnson is a guy to watch this coming season.  He's an absolute monster blocker and was blowing up defenders and helping make big holes for the running game.  We haven't had a great blocking FB in several years and it's good to see that position get upgraded big-time.
 
No major injuries and a solid showing for the new defense.  Not a bad start.



marty -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/18/2009 12:56:06 AM)

My early reports on the Packers' D now looks accurate.

However, it was just the Cleveland offense.

The Glog from the game said that if it were the regular season, the Packers probably would have dominated.  NOT what I was hoping for !



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/22/2009 9:29:03 PM)

The first half featured the starters and they absolutely dominated the Bills. The offense was outstanding with the OL opening huge holes for the running game and Rodgers played fantastic. The defense was swarming, creating a lot of pressure and getting 1 INT and 3 fumbles. So far after 2 games the offense looks to have not missed a beat since last season and is playing better even. The defense has been down right destructive to the opposing offenses.

Still only preseason, but there's a lot of good things going on.



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/23/2009 8:27:22 AM)

Should be a 3 way race to the finish line this year Craig.  I always liked Rodgers and thought GB got a steal with him.  I will trade you our 4 QBs for him!

I am not as sold on the defense there yet



marty -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/24/2009 3:08:28 AM)

After 2 pre-season games, I'm starting to think the Packers will go 11-5, the Vikes 10-6 and the Bears 9-7, ALL making the playoffs.  

I know that's VERY pre-mature, and a ALOT can change, and it can change FAST.  I'm assuming Aaron Rodgers stays healthy, and that is NOT a given.  And despite being an Ironman, a 40 year old Favre is not a guarantee to stay healthy either.



Guest -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/25/2009 11:39:56 AM)

Im not ready to annoint GB division champs just yet.  I remember plenty of years the Vikes looked like world beaters in the preseason only to be not so good when it counted.  Its the preseason...and against the Bills, TO wasn't even in the game and if it were regular season that changes a lot when it comes to defenses.....The Crappers will be a good team....11-5 good remains to be seen!



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (8/25/2009 11:41:35 AM)

Here's a prediction for the NFC North...

The Lions will have a better record this year than last year.   [;)]



Page: <<   < prev  60 61 [62] 63 64   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode