RE: RE:The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 11:00:30 AM)

Allen is getting blocked by a single lineman on many plays.  He just hasn't caught fire yet.

But Green Bay has to run the ball more



Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 11:02:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

I guess the problem with Romo wasn't Owens after all.


Or more likely - there was more than one factor to the problem.



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 11:03:23 AM)

Owens was and wasn't a problem.  Owens is disruptive.  There is no disputing that...but he IS a good receiver.  The Bills look a lot better this year...is that a coincidence?  Trent Edwards looks better this year, again...coincidence?

Romo has never been that good really.  Some good days true...but he is a big game choker.  Has been from the start.  And he's made a good part of his career a soap opera with who he's dating. 




Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 11:04:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

I guess the problem with Romo wasn't Owens after all.


Or more likely - there was more than one factor to the problem.


Bingo!



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 11:05:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

Allen is getting blocked by a single lineman on many plays.  He just hasn't caught fire yet.

But Green Bay has to run the ball more


Both true.  But Allen has been doubled quite a bit.   The Packers wont even think about not doubling him...especially the way their line has played thus far.  I predict a big game for Edwards.  But that is still two weeks away.



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 11:30:58 AM)

USH pointed out how Allen does not play well in Sept.  I looked it up and he has never had more than 2 sacks in the month of Sept but get s4-5 sacks the rest of the months each month.

Owens is an asset.  People need to stop listening to the media BS on him.  It is just like the Moss takes plays off nonsense.

Moss and Owens were the best 2 WRs of the last decade and the media crucified them.  Far too many fans bought into that garbage.  The 49ers and Eagles offense both went down when he left and so will the Cowboys. 

But the big problem with Dallas is the CHOKING DOG at QB



hrerikl -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 11:34:40 AM)

Owens is a good player.  It is just that after a couple seasons, he becomes a toxic personality and a distraction that three teams have decided is not worth the headache.   At this point 3 times is definitely a trend.



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 11:58:34 AM)

I agree, when I see 3 teams get rid of him and 3 offenses suffer I think it proves his worth.

The problem isn't even getting rid of him but you have to replace him with another good WR.

Addition by subtraction doesn't work.



hrerikl -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 12:01:43 PM)

I agree that the offenses suffer talent wise.  It just appears that when you get him, it is for like a 2 year lease.  Buffalo better have a better plan on how they are going to move on 2 years from now than the other 3 teams have.  Because history has shown he can't last much longer than that and will build you up for a couple years then leave you worse than he found you.



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 12:12:23 PM)

It won't be off the field stuff that ends his run there in 2 years

It will be age



hrerikl -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 12:13:41 PM)

Probably right.



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 12:16:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hrerikl

I agree that the offenses suffer talent wise.  It just appears that when you get him, it is for like a 2 year lease.  Buffalo better have a better plan on how they are going to move on 2 years from now than the other 3 teams have.  Because history has shown he can't last much longer than that and will build you up for a couple years then leave you worse than he found you.


Buffalo only signed him to a one year contract. 



hrerikl -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 12:21:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: hrerikl

I agree that the offenses suffer talent wise.  It just appears that when you get him, it is for like a 2 year lease.  Buffalo better have a better plan on how they are going to move on 2 years from now than the other 3 teams have.  Because history has shown he can't last much longer than that and will build you up for a couple years then leave you worse than he found you.


Buffalo only signed him to a one year contract. 


He will be back re-signed next year.  He brings a lot of talent to an offense and is usually a model citizen until sometime into the second or third year.  I could even see him getting to the point that he doesn't want to make another move and finishing his career there on a high note.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 12:27:06 PM)

First off, this is the Packers thread and not the TO or Romo thread.  Bastards.
 
I missed the game due to coaching my son's Fall Ball team and didn't realize I could have taped the game.  Just saw they were on at the same time as the Vikes and assumed wrong. 
 
From listening to other fans that watched the game, it seems that Rodgers held the ball too long yesterday due to the short passing game suddenly being non-existant.  Too many deep throws and too many drops by receivers isn't helping things either.  He had time on several sacks but held the ball too long.

I will also concur that the Pack need to run more.  Just silly the pass/run ratio with us.  I think MM is trying to get that pre-season magic back but it's not working.  Let's get those short routes back and a running game so this offense can get it's collective confidence back.



marty -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/21/2009 7:38:10 PM)

First off, this is the Packers thread and not the TO or Romo thread.  Bastards. 

Packers, T.O., Cowboys - maybe people thought they were staying on topic, as they started thinking it was a thread for things to DISLIKE ? [:D]

Craig, as I said last week, the Packers have (had, injuries might be starting to mount) a very talented team that is being coached into a poor start.  They could easily be 0-2.

I think there is an overall lack of attention to detail that expressed itself in Jennings not getting set on the final play.  I think THAT is there, along with some stupidity like the deep ball to Jennings last week on 3rd and ONE near the end of the game. 

I still fear the Packers are a VERY talented team that COULD be a SB contender, but I think they will be coached to mediocrity, and right now I like the Vikes' chances in 2 weeks, provided the Vikes stay healthy and don't overlook the Pack.   
 



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/22/2009 8:35:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

First off, this is the Packers thread and not the TO or Romo thread.  Bastards. 

Packers, T.O., Cowboys - maybe people thought they were staying on topic, as they started thinking it was a thread for things to DISLIKE ? [:D]

Craig, as I said last week, the Packers have (had, injuries might be starting to mount) a very talented team that is being coached into a poor start.  They could easily be 0-2.

I think there is an overall lack of attention to detail that expressed itself in Jennings not getting set on the final play.  I think THAT is there, along with some stupidity like the deep ball to Jennings last week on 3rd and ONE near the end of the game. 

I still fear the Packers are a VERY talented team that COULD be a SB contender, but I think they will be coached to mediocrity, and right now I like the Vikes' chances in 2 weeks, provided the Vikes stay healthy and don't overlook the Pack.   
 


How could the Vikes overlook the Pack? 
This is the first of two Brett Favre vs the Packers games.



marty -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/22/2009 8:42:13 AM)

The Vikes COULD overlook the Pack if the Packers are 1-2 going into the game after losing to the Rams, and the Vikes are 3-0 after blowing out the 49ers at home. 

THAT is how it could happen, and could end up with the Packers being overlooked, and then they upset the Vikings. 



Trekgeekscott -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/22/2009 8:52:00 AM)

I don't think they could possibly overlook this biggest division rival with the added bonus of Brett Favre playing against them on National Television.  If anything they would be more focused as we KNOW the Packers will be pumped up big time for that game.



Jeff Jesser -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/22/2009 9:49:35 AM)

No doubt Trekkie.  No way in hell they over look the Pack.  In fact I see 2 possibilities much more realistic:


1.  They over look the Niners in anticipation of the Pack on Monday night.
2.  They are too geeked up for the Pack and play lousy making a lot of stupid mistakes.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/28/2009 12:00:09 PM)

Packers whip up on the Rams 36-17
The Pack started off a bit slow on offense and got 3 FGs on their first 3 drives then finally punched one in the endzone to jump out 16-0.  Kyle Boller came in and led a gallant Ram comback to bring the score to 23-17 in the 3rd.  The Packers offense dominated the 4th Q to put the game away. 
 
Charles Woodson is making a serious push for Def POY early on this season.  3 INTs in 3 games, one for a TD.  Plays solid run defense along with his outstanding pass coverage.  Overall the D is too soft vs the run. 
 
Still a concern is the combination of poor pass blocking and ARod holding onto the ball too long.  He's gotta recognize when nothing is there and throw the ball away or else tuck it in and run with it. 
 
Biggest game since the NFC Championship game in 2007 next week vs the Vikes.  AP could have a huge game.



Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/28/2009 12:07:46 PM)

These division games are always a tough contest and anything could happen. I admit I'm very nervous about the outcome and just glad that our first meeting is a home game for us.



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/28/2009 2:34:56 PM)

Woodson was always one of my favorite players



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/28/2009 3:17:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

Woodson was always one of my favorite players

He's been unquestionably reborn in GB.  The guy has been happy here and it's showing.  He's getting to the point of HOF-worthy.  I may have to get me a Woodson jersey.



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/28/2009 4:14:05 PM)

It is interesting that 5 years from now if you name the top 10 CBs of all time the Raiders may have had 3 of them at some point in their careers - Hayes, Haynes, Woodson.

Kind of like Chicago with MLBs
GB with QBs
Vikings had 2 of the best WRs of all time
etc



Jake Carlson -> RE: RE:The Packers (9/28/2009 4:24:33 PM)

I don't know that I'd consider Leo Lewis one of the best WR's of all time, JC!?! [8|]



But seriously, you could include the Vikes with QB's. -- Favre, Tarkenton, Moon (and almost Marino if the Sheriff had his way)



Page: <<   < prev  63 64 [65] 66 67   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode