RE: The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (11/27/2009 6:39:53 AM)

I don't know Craig - they could easily lose 3 of their remaining games:

Baltimore      
@ Chicago      
@ Pittsburgh      
Seattle      
@ Arizona

If you guys win 3 of these you have a good shot at the WC

Win 4 and you are in

But the only gimme in there is Seattle at GB.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (11/27/2009 8:56:53 PM)

The Pack certainly don't have a consistent history on their side this season. So I can see someone being objective and say the Pack could easily lose 3 of their last 5 games.

I'm certainly going homerish here but I think they win at least 3 of these games if not 4. They seemed to have turned a corner and are looking much more like the team from preseason in these last few games than they have all season long. The past 3 games the Packers have dominated most of the time on both sides of the ball, that's what is giving me hope is that they are starting to click on the OL and the defensive scheme.



Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/28/2009 12:45:32 PM)

Turned the corner???  Look at the schedule the Packers have played!!!  Don't even count the Dallas game as a tough game either.  Minnesota stomped  mud hole in Green Bay.....and you lost to Tampa?  You beat the 49ers, Cleveland, Detroit twice...what corner did this team turn?  The the NFL scheduling guru's give you a gift game on Turkey Day followed by a Monday night game.....Yet to be impressed!



marty -> RE: The Packers (11/28/2009 11:55:36 PM)

Pro football

Do you think the Green Bay Packers will make the playoffs this season?



Answer
Votes
Percentage

A — Yes, the Packers will make the playoffs this season.
39
34%

B — No, the Packers will not make the playoffs this season.
38
33%

C — I really don't care if the Packers make the playoffs.
34
30%

D — I really don't know.
3
3%

TOTAL VOTES:
114
100%



marty -> RE: The Packers (11/29/2009 12:00:01 AM)

I think it's pretty funny that 30% don't care.   

They're probably ALL Brent Farve fans [:)].

I also wonder if that reflects about what the numbers for the entire state would be ?



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (11/29/2009 12:44:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

Turned the corner???  Look at the schedule the Packers have played!!!  Don't even count the Dallas game as a tough game either.  Minnesota stomped  mud hole in Green Bay.....and you lost to Tampa?  You beat the 49ers, Cleveland, Detroit twice...what corner did this team turn?  The the NFL scheduling guru's give you a gift game on Turkey Day followed by a Monday night game.....Yet to be impressed!

The corner was that the pass protection has been better, that the defense is playing better. They are not as sporadic as they were and there's more consistency. It's all since the Tampa game, that's what I was referring to (as in my original post in case you missed it). The Tampa loss seems to have lit a fire under the team as they have been much better since then (except for special teams, which is still horrid).

It's been mostly the same schedule that the Vikes have played for the Packers, so if the Pack's schedule has been weak, what does that make the Vikes schedule?



eduardo5046 -> RE: The Packers (11/29/2009 12:59:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

Turned the corner???  Look at the schedule the Packers have played!!!  Don't even count the Dallas game as a tough game either.  Minnesota stomped  mud hole in Green Bay.....and you lost to Tampa?  You beat the 49ers, Cleveland, Detroit twice...what corner did this team turn?  The the NFL scheduling guru's give you a gift game on Turkey Day followed by a Monday night game.....Yet to be impressed!

The corner was that the pass protection has been better, that the defense is playing better. They are not as sporadic as they were and there's more consistency. It's all since the Tampa game, that's what I was referring to (as in my original post in case you missed it). The Tampa loss seems to have lit a fire under the team as they have been much better since then (except for special teams, which is still horrid).

It's been mostly the same schedule that the Vikes have played for the Packers, so if the Pack's schedule has been weak, what does that make the Vikes schedule?




Both schedules are weak the difference is that the Vikings have dominated their weak schedule the fudgies haven't .

But you can take solace in the fact that had it not been for the two beat downs the Vikings laid on your boys they would have pretty decent record !



Tim Cady -> RE: The Packers (11/29/2009 10:36:44 AM)

Love the optimism Craig and with the vulnerability that the Giants and Falcons have shown, Green Bay, indeed is in the hunt. They should really hope for Philthy to win the East so they can tiebreak for Wildcard with the Cowboys.

They will beat Seattle and maybe Pittsburgh, depending on Troy P and Big Ben. I see them getting destroyed by Baltimore and Arizona.

Bears game is a toss up, cause it is Da Bears in Chicago.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (12/4/2009 7:17:14 PM)

Charles Woodson wins the Def POTM for Nov. This marks his 2nd win this season as Def POTM.

He's gotta be the leading candidate at this point for the Def POTY.



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/5/2009 10:23:35 AM)

That's pretty good Craig. Not nearly as good as our QB getting offensive player of the month, but pretty good nevertheless.
[;)]



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (12/5/2009 4:27:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

Charles Woodson wins the Def POTM for Nov. This marks his 2nd win this season as Def POTM.

He's gotta be the leading candidate at this point for the Def POTY.


Candidate

1. Allen
2. Reavis
3. Woodson
4. Sharper



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/7/2009 9:51:56 PM)

Anybody watching the Raven/Packer game ?  Anyone want to compare the 3rd down NON-call PI on the Ravens last drive to the PI call GB benefitted from in their follow up drive ?  It's VERY hard to see how they could let the Pack get away with that one on 3rd down, and then have the gall to call PI on the Ravens' defense the very next drive with very little contact and the defender looking at the ball.

Calls and NON-calls on PI are the easiest way to 'sway' a game, and it appears the Vikes might have been on the wrong side of a 'sway' this week, while the Packers are on the RIGHT side. 

When I saw almost EVERY commentator picking the Pack tonight, I was thinking the refs might tinker with it and help the Ravens keep it close.  Then I thought about the spread (Pack by 3 1/2), and with the Ravens winning HUGE a few weeks ago along with winning in Pittsburgh last week, and how the Pack haven't fared all that well against good teams, it would NOT surprise me if most of the bettors took the 3 1/2 with the Ravens. 

While the Pack HAVE had some penalties against them in the 1st half, they were calls the refs almost HAD to make.  The Packers are getting away with A LOT of contact after the whistle and have tackled guys buy their helmet and got away with one really good facemask grab on a tackle.  And the BIGGEST play involved the play where Grant fumbled that was initially called a fumble (probably by a ref that is NOT involved in a 'sway' for the Pack).  The replay looked CLOSE (it looked to me like the ball was coming out as the knee hit the ground), certainly not enough to overrule the call on the field.  Unless the ref looking at the replay was THEE official (or ONE of the officials) involved in a 'sway'.  Even a single freeze frame where it would appear Grant still had the ball, is just a millisecond and doesn't show 'clear evidence' that would be enough to overturn the call on the field.

I have seen several games this year where the Pack seemed to be getting shafted by the officials, so it's NOT my dislike of them that has me convinced the Pack have the officials one their side tonight.  What might have been a close game, will probably snowball into an easy Packers' win, unless the Ravens come back like they did against the Vikes.  



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/7/2009 10:26:24 PM)

WOW, this is getting interesting!  I thought with the Pack up the ref bias might back off a bit in the 3rd quarter.  I immediately see a Packer drive get the benefit of a PI call that probably should have been a no call, or even PI on Driver, but they called it on the Raven defender.  Then on the Ravens next drive (about 9:30 on the clock, 3rd quarter), you see a Packer defender use an armbar to hold the Ravens WR in the endzone, and guess what ?  NO CALL!  His armbar was preventing the Raven WR (Clayton) from doing one of those good pushoffs, like Mason and he did against the Vikes.

The PI calls and non-calls all continue to favor the Pack, but the Ravens overcame it and just scored.  Then on the ensuing kickoff the Packers fumbled, it's ruled for the Ravens, but then it's said that the ref was pointing the wrong way (was the ref confused, or didn't they tell him which team was supposed to benefit from the 'sway' ?), and the Pack are awarded the ball. 

This game (I should really say THE OFFICIATING ) could REALLY get interesting if the Ravens continue to put up a fight, and there really IS a 'sway' going on for the Pack.

The Ravens finally got a PI call (after about 4 or 5 NON calls on Packer defenders), this time in the endzone where the defender had a armbar and surrounded the WRs arm BEFORE the ball got there.  I'm kind of surprised it was called, but maybe they have some fear of getting caught 'swaying' the game, and want to cloud things up a bit.  It gave the Ravens an easy TD.  On the Packers next drive, fans were screaming for a return PI call, but didn't get it as the Raven defender didn't make contact until after the ball was there.  I'm still surprised it wasn't called, even if it wouldn't have been a good call, to continue the bias in favor of the Pack. 



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/7/2009 11:20:04 PM)

Comical !  You have a team with WRs that pushoff almost every play (Ravens), going against a defense that likes to commit PI on nearly every pass play (Pack).  A clinic on PI is what one announcer just called it. [&:]

Derrick Mason was just called for offensive PI, and it was probably the correct call, although it may have been because Woodson was falling down, but it is also true that Woodson tried to make contact before the ball was there on his way down, just was unsucessful with HIS push.  I would go along with what was called, although you could argue PI should have been called on BOTH players.  People that don't like penalties would probably argue it should have been a NO call, just let them play, even if attempts were made to get an unfair advantage.

Later the Ravens get another PI call in the endzone (PI on the Packers), this time the defender made quite a bit of contact, even grabbing the WRs facemask BEFORE the ball got there.  But it's interesting because the Raven WR also made some contact before the ball got there trying to get in position.  You could have just called NO PI because BOTH players were jostling for position, but you'd still have to call facemask penalty on the Packer defender.

An announcer made it sound like NO penalty should have been called as they were just 'jostling' for the ball, but does that mean players should now be allowed to commit PI ?  Should the rule just be abolished or should we just ignore it and 'let them play' ?  Or should it just be used in SOME games to influence the outcome in the correct way for a 'sway' ? 



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/7/2009 11:43:14 PM)

WOW, the bias for the Packers almost continued to the last whistle.  The Ravens get called for a false start, the play is whistled dead, but Johnny Jolly gets away with quite a hit on Flacco.  SOMEHOW, the refs fail to notice this hit.

Yes, both Ravens TDs came from PI calls in the endzone, but they were pretty much correct calls.  The Packers ALSO had TDs set up by PI calls, but what is MOST important is the numerous Raven drives earlier in the game that were discontinued because the Packer defense got away with a NON call on their defense, when PI SHOULD have been called.

Congratulations to the refs if a 'sway' was involved, as the team they favored won,what a surprise.  IF the Vikes meet the Pack in the playoffs and the Packer DBs are allowed to commit PI without a flag thrown, there is little doubt in my mind which team will win.



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/8/2009 7:36:12 AM)

Should the Vikes/Packers meet in the playoffs and the Vikes commit PI twice and they are both called, while the Packers commit PI 8 times and it's called twice, guess which team will win ?



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/8/2009 8:48:24 AM)

One of the sloppiest games I've seen in a while. Neither team showed much discipline. It's pretty amazing to have 11 penalties, throw two interceptions, and still win the game. That only happens when you play against a team that commits 12 penalties and throws three interceptions.

[:D]

Still counts in the win column, so congrats to Craig.



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/8/2009 6:42:56 PM)

This is great - the NFL Network was just reviewing the Packer/Ravens game, and one of the comments one guy made was that the Packer DB's are known for having their hands all over the receivers, and it just depends on what referee crew is working as to whether or not they're going to call it. [:-]

Ha! That's what some here have been saying forever! They get away with so much crap.

Nice to know that it's at least noticed by the football commentators, even though that doesn't help much on gameday.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (12/8/2009 9:05:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

One of the sloppiest games I've seen in a while. Neither team showed much discipline. It's pretty amazing to have 11 penalties, throw two interceptions, and still win the game. That only happens when you play against a team that commits 12 penalties and throws three interceptions.

[:D]

Still counts in the win column, so congrats to Craig.


True that Lynn. I'd never seen that many PI calls in 3 games let alone 1, but like you said, it still counts in the W column.

Our LB corps really stepped up their game last night. All of them played well.

Tramon is going to get picked on a lot the rest of the season.



marty -> RE: The Packers (12/8/2009 9:41:30 PM)

How could the commentators NOT notice!  I think they commit PI more than ANY team in the league, and maybe by FAR.  The Packer players don't even make an attempt to avoid a penalty, they continue to make contact before the balls gets there, and just hope there is a NO call, which is what usually happens.  They are STILL flagged an enormous amount because they commit it so much.   

I would STILL be willing to bet that IF someone kept track how many NO calls of PI each team got away with during the games, the Pack would lead the league, and maybe by a large margin.

Until 3 minutes were left in the 3rd quarter, the Packers got away with 4 NON-calls of PI, which basically killed 4 drives for the Ravens.  At the very same time they called 4 penalties on Raven defenders to lead to several Packer scores, the Ravens did overcome one of the PI calls to stop the Pack, and the Packer kicker missed a FG.  The refs FINALLY called PI on the Packers with 3 minutes to play in the 3rd quarter, with the Packers up by 17.  

Either they figured it was safe enough for the 'sway' to stay intact, OR that if they let the Pack get away with any MORE obvious PI while they are making all the PI calls on the Ravens people might at SOME point become suspicious, OR the ref that made that call was not in on the 'sway'. 



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/8/2009 10:01:24 PM)

Was that one Rape at Lambeau, part two?



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (12/8/2009 10:17:42 PM)

And the black helicoptors keep circling and the conspiracy theories continue... [&o]



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (12/8/2009 10:26:28 PM)

And yet you can't dispute it either.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (12/8/2009 11:19:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

And yet you can't dispute it either.

Dispute what? "A rape at Lambeau Part II"? Please. The Pack were penalized plenty that game. That's gotta be the lamest comment I've seen you make Lynn.

What's your proof? Marty? If so, I'm not even gonna indulge that sillyness.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (12/9/2009 6:57:46 AM)

Usually - blaming losses on the refs shows a failure to accept responsibility for getting beat.



Page: <<   < prev  71 72 [73] 74 75   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode