RE: RE:The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (11/21/2010 3:23:56 PM)

Great win Craig

Now go avenge the loss to the Bears and take this division



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (11/21/2010 4:22:03 PM)

I'm rooting for the Colts to take it all.



Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/21/2010 5:30:38 PM)

Patriots!



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (11/21/2010 6:16:54 PM)

J E T S
Jets
Jets
Jets



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (11/21/2010 6:52:28 PM)

I can just feel the love of the holiday season here. [&:]



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (11/21/2010 7:04:19 PM)

I am not that angry because even if the Vikings won this game they were not making the playoffs.

I see the Packers, Saints, Giants, and Eagles in a class by themself right now - and in that order.

I don't buy the Falcons and I think the Saints destroy them in a rematch. The Eagles beat the Falcons up and down the field. The Eagles-Packsers was close and would have been closer witch Vick playing the whole game.

The Giants have the D Line to beat the Eagles and Saints

Any one of the 4 could win the NFC IMO

On the AFC side, Jets and Pats at the top with Ravens and Steelers one step down.

If the Steelers had of kept Santonio Holmes they would be the best.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (11/21/2010 10:09:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

I am not that angry because even if the Vikings won this game they were not making the playoffs.

I see the Packers, Saints, Giants, and Eagles in a class by themself right now - and in that order.

I don't buy the Falcons and I think the Saints destroy them in a rematch. The Eagles beat the Falcons up and down the field. The Eagles-Packsers was close and would have been closer witch Vick playing the whole game.

The Giants have the D Line to beat the Eagles and Saints

Any one of the 4 could win the NFC IMO

On the AFC side, Jets and Pats at the top with Ravens and Steelers one step down.

If the Steelers had of kept Santonio Holmes they would be the best.


Reid's poor play calling led to this loss

That and Avant dropping the easiest TD catch in the world



marty -> RE: The Packers (11/21/2010 10:13:54 PM)

A well officiated game with Vikes/Packers, Jennings was GREAT, except, I have to mention this:

The Packers were also fortunate the refs let their OL get away with plenty of holds to set up some of the deeper throws. There was a key 3rd and 8 with 13 minutes left in the 3rd quarter where Clifton got away with hands to the face on Kevin Williams AND there was also an obvious block to the back by the guy blocking Ray Edwards, as Rodgers ran for the 1st down. Either one of those gets called, and it might have been an entirely different (I do NOT think it would have been, but it COULD have been). Ray Edwards was also held on his sack.

In the last 30 years, I cannot recall a Vikings' DL getting held as much as Ray Edwards has this year WITHOUT getting any holding calls. It's as though word got out, or teams just looked at film and thought, "we can just block Edwards one on one, hold him and hope it doesn't get called, as it probably won't". I think Edwards would be having quite a season if the refs would call some of the holds on him.

I think it's the Packers turn to lose in the NFC Championship to the Saints. I think the Packers are like the Vikes last year, a lot of talent, but a bad HC. They'll probably either lose in the playoffs to the Giants, or to the Saints.



marty -> RE: The Packers (11/28/2010 12:45:04 PM)

Nobody holds like Charles Woodson.

The Packers just had a LBer get away with an obvious hold, but the Falcon WR (I think it was Roddy White) STILL made the catch. The next play, Woodson was fined for an even better hold where he twisted the WR around, after 5 yards and before the ball was there.

Packers just went no huddle, trying to loosen up the Falcons zone defense. Pack got down to the 3, but couldn't punch it in.

I think the Vikes should consider the Packers' OC Joe Philbin for a HC next year. This guy calls GREAT games, quite a bit of variety, and you see a lot of different stuff every week. They seem to really try to exploit a teams' weaknesses. And not only that, I think Philbin is NOT the benefactor of so much WR and QB talent, I think he just calls GREAT games, and at times the real problem is execution, NOT playcalling.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (11/28/2010 1:23:11 PM)

The Packers Red Zone playcalling is killing them today

They should be winning this game 14-10 right now

Aaron Rodgers on back to back sneak attempts?

Really?

You have 3 Top WRs, a QB with a quick release, and you sneak twice in a row?



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (11/28/2010 7:15:35 PM)

Packers 17 - Falcons 20
Tough loss. But this was definately a very winnable game.

Offense
  • Couldn't run the ball at all. It wasn't just Jackson being poor, the OL was simply getting beat badly up front on the running plays.
  • Great throws by Rodgers
  • Outstanding job by the WRs getting YAC. That was as impressive as they've ever been in that area.
  • I heard that the first failed QB sneak by Rodgers wasn't the call and he changed it. Bad decision. That fumble was a huge gamechanger. Having him run in that situation is a direct result of our inability to run the ball. That has to change.

    Defense
  • Atlanta just ran the ball at will. There was no outside contain and their RBs just had to hit the edge and they had lots of room.
  • Ryan did a great job taking what the Packer D gave him. He had a very good day.
  • Outstanding pass rush and pressure.

    Special Teams
  • Someone tell Shields to take a knee when it's midway into the endzone please.
  • Just a horrible coverage on that last kickoff. Just gave the game to Atlanta with that and the stupid facemask penalty.

    Overall I think the Packers are every bit as good as Atlanta. The game was very much a back and forth affair that either team could win. The one lone turnover was the big key in the game, IMO.



    • marty -> RE: The Packers (11/28/2010 7:54:41 PM)

    JC

    I doubt they called two sneaks at the 2 yard line, I think that was Rodgers. For the most part, I thought Philbin called a GREAT game.

    GB, like the Vikings last year, are a talented team with a bad coach.

    I think McCarthy is a bad coach because the team is undisciplined. They were VERY heavy penalized early in the year. The only thing that's really changed the last few games, is the refs are letting them get away with a lot of their aggressiveness.

    The Packers get away with A LOT of contact in the 2ndary after 5 yards, and hits before the ball gets there. But there WERE a few plays in the last few games where the DBs just made GREAT plays, getting there just as the ball arrived, or making plays on the ball. The OL HAS improved, but they were also getting away with A LOT of holding the last few games.

    The facemask penalty on the kickoff WAS penalized, and the hold on Woodson were examples were they WERE flagged. Baluga was also flagged in this game, he's gotten away some real holds the last few games. But he is also VERY impressive strengthwise, and sometimes does a good job on pass blocking WITHOUT holding. He is one of the most impressive OL I've EVER seen in GB, he seems stronger than Clifton or Tauscher. He will be a VERY good RT, and probably could end up being good on the left.



    marty -> RE: The Packers (11/28/2010 8:56:27 PM)

    NOT a big deal, but it COULD have been.

    I was surprised that with 56 seconds left in the game, the refs didn't take a look at Nelson's TD for the Pack, it was VERY close. It looked like a TD on the replay, I just don't understand why they didn't take a look at something so close. Does one team need to dispute a call for a booth review ?



    Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/28/2010 11:02:51 PM)

    Green Bay is horribly one dimensional. They had opportunities earlier in the season to make a trade to get in a decent RB who would take all the pressure of Rogers and the passing game. Much like McNabb and the Redskins, the Packers today abandoned the run and exclusively passed the ball. Rogers was the most effective rusher on that team today. Knowing this, most teams will try to put more and more pressure on Rogers and see if they can force him into mistakes. The Patriots will eat them up...the way the Bears are playing they will eat them up and I'm fairly certain the Packers have a couple of other tough games down the stretch. The playoffs are no gimmee for those guys just yet....I still see Packer fans pining for a 11-5/12-4 season. I don't see it.



    SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (11/28/2010 11:29:00 PM)

    Geez, I hope you are right, Ed.  [:D]



    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (11/29/2010 8:24:48 AM)

    Ed,
    You are correct that we've turned very one-dimensional.  Outside of DeAngelo Williams, there wasn't any RB worth trading for and it's not like there's some great FA out there.  Carolina was kinda wishy-washy on trading Williams anyways.  People will point to Marshawn Lynch but he's been terrible at Seattle, so he clearly wasn't the answer.
     
    I have no thoughts of an 11-5 season.  I would be happy with 10-6. 



    Guest -> RE: The Packers (11/29/2010 10:42:45 AM)

    Craig,

    Marshawn Lynch or DeAngelo Williams would have made the running game respectible and at least game planned for in Green Bay.  Right now its pin your ears back and go after Rogers.  The only thing that leads to is your QB getting hurt.  With even a sniff of a running game yesterday Grren Bay wins that game IMO.  Well, that and a little tackling and better special teams play.  And I do not fault the guy for face masking on that kick return after the GB score.  If he doesn't get the mask I think the guy houses it.



    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (11/29/2010 11:46:01 AM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

    Craig,

    Marshawn Lynch or DeAngelo Williams would have made the running game respectible and at least game planned for in Green Bay.  Right now its pin your ears back and go after Rogers.  The only thing that leads to is your QB getting hurt.  With even a sniff of a running game yesterday Grren Bay wins that game IMO.  Well, that and a little tackling and better special teams play.  And I do not fault the guy for face masking on that kick return after the GB score.  If he doesn't get the mask I think the guy houses it.

    I was for trading for Williams but not for Lynch.  Lynch is avg 3.1 ypc in Seattle.  He wouldn't have done any better in GB.
     
    Biggest problem is that the OL was dominated yesterday.  They are not very good run blockers simply put.  Jackson isn't all that great of a back but there were guys in the backfield all day long on run plays.  Add in his dancing around and that's a problem.



    John Childress -> RE: The Packers (11/29/2010 11:51:37 AM)

    quote:

    Having him run in that situation is a direct result of our inability to run the ball. That has to change.


    You should have thrown the ball both attempts and it is a different game

    Also, you can't only run your RBs 11 times combined all game - even if they are only getting 3 yards per carry you can't put your QB under that much pressure

    Andy Reid did the same thing



    Prescott -> RE: The Packers (11/29/2010 2:09:36 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske

    Craig,

    Marshawn Lynch or DeAngelo Williams would have made the running game respectible and at least game planned for in Green Bay.  Right now its pin your ears back and go after Rogers.  The only thing that leads to is your QB getting hurt.  With even a sniff of a running game yesterday Grren Bay wins that game IMO.  Well, that and a little tackling and better special teams play.  And I do not fault the guy for face masking on that kick return after the GB score.  If he doesn't get the mask I think the guy houses it.

    I was for trading for Williams but not for Lynch.  Lynch is avg 3.1 ypc in Seattle.  He wouldn't have done any better in GB.
     
    Biggest problem is that the OL was dominated yesterday.  They are not very good run blockers simply put.  Jackson isn't all that great of a back but there were guys in the backfield all day long on run plays.  Add in his dancing around and that's a problem.


    You guys still use the zone blocking too, right?

    I really think there was one guy who knew how to coach and teach that correctly, Alex Gibbs. He would keep his practices dark to try to keep his training secrets hidden. Basically, I think that unless you have Gibbs or have him mentor you how to do it, NFL teams should scrap the zone blocking scheme. It's garbage unless executed perfectly in the pros.



    marty -> RE: The Packers (12/1/2010 8:30:10 PM)

    I think the Packers should continue to abandon the run, do lots of low percentage deep passes, zone block, and whatever else gives a good probability of a loss [;)].

    The Packers do NOT need a better back, they are just fine they way they are. They just need to block better, get Grant back next year, and maybe draft a RB in the 3rd or 4th round.



    John Childress -> RE: The Packers (12/2/2010 6:48:20 AM)

    Let's say the Packers beat the Bears and lose to the Pats. That puts them at 11-5 with 1 division loss. To get there, they must also beat the Giants at home. Those are their 3 remaining tough games.
    They go 2-1 over that stretch and they should win the division with a tie breaker over the Bears.

    The Bears have

    @ Detroit
    Patriots
    @ Minnesota
    Jets
    @Green Bay

    That is a very tough schedule. I see them losing at least 2 of those games and possibly even 3



    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (12/6/2010 9:08:31 AM)

    Packers 34 - 49ers 16
    After a shaky 1st quarter, the Packers took care of business.
     
    Offense
  • Rodgers continues his outstanding play.  Last 4 games 131.3 QB rating, 11 TD, 0 INT, 308 ypg.
  • Welcome aboard James Starks.  It was good start to what I hope is a running game revived.
  • Jennings is just a defense killer.
     
    Defense
  • Jenkins is becoming just a monster.  He's providing a big pass rush and is very solid vs the run.
  • Secondary got lucky with some drops.  Peprah and Collins need to be better back there.
  • What's gotten into Zombo and the sacks lately?  He and Jenkins are benefitting from all the attention Matthews gets.
     
    Special Teams
  • Crosby misses his first career FG under 30 yds.  New nickname is Clunk.
  • Kickoff coverage was horrible.
  • Shields is the real deal on kick returns, his speed just creates yards.  He'll get even better with time.
     
    The 2nd and 3rd quarters were just dominated by the Packers and that was the game right there.  Amazing how good the offense can look when we can run the ball and Starks can hopefully keep this up.  He looked great as he simply just ran straight ahead instead of dancing like Jackson does. 
     
    Four weeks left and the only game the Pack can afford to lose is the Patriot game.  I feel the Detroit, NYG and Chicago games are must wins.  Being 10-6 and missing out of the playoffs is a real possibility.  Every NFC game is a must win.



    • John Childress -> RE: The Packers (12/6/2010 9:17:04 AM)

    I see the Bears with at least 2 more losses this year. More likely they lose 3 - New England, Packers, and either the Jets or Vikings game

    I am not buying them and think the Packers still win the division



    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (12/6/2010 9:36:11 AM)

    I'm not banking on the Bears falling apart or losing enough.  I've been waiting most of the season for that.  The Packers just need to take care of business in their NFC games and they will be fine.
     
    How could I forget about Driver's TD catch and run.  That was one of the better plays I've seen this season from the Packers.



    Page: <<   < prev  84 85 [86] 87 88   next >   >>



    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode