RE: The Packers

RE: The Packers (Full Version)

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

Message

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/2/2011 4:25:29 PM)
The Bears are clearly the best team in the division. They don't even need this game and are shutting the Packers down completely

marty -> RE: The Packers (1/2/2011 5:35:17 PM)
The call on Peppers was iffy, but not a bad call. The Packers also benefitted when Jennings fighting for positioning drew a phantom inteference call, when Clifton was committing hands to the face on Peppers with NO call. Nice pass by Rodgers to Jennings. It completely changed the momentum - besides the Bears calling timeout on a play where Chester Taylor picked up 15 yards to get a first down.

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (1/2/2011 5:53:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty Chicago on offense, 2nd down from the 2 yard line, GB gets away with an obvious hold in the endzone that even the announcers notice. Chicago ends up settling for a FG. What's new ? Yep. I couldn't freaking believe it. The Chicago receiver should have fought for that flag, not that it would have helped. I'm so sick of the Packers getting the preferential calls and non-calls.

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/2/2011 5:58:05 PM)
Packers are clearly the best team in the division this year. But no one's great.

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (1/2/2011 5:59:31 PM)
I don't think so. They lost pitifully to the Lions, for Pete's sake. This year the Bears are clearly the best.

Todd M -> RE: The Packers (1/2/2011 6:19:49 PM)
Packers and Bears stink - both one and done.

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/2/2011 9:24:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lynn G. I don't think so. They lost pitifully to the Lions, for Pete's sake. This year the Bears are clearly the best. Packers have had far more injuries; Bears have been the healthiest (ie luckiest) team in the league. Put the Packers against the Bears in the playoffs; I'll take the Packers, easy. QB play is the big difference. But I hate both, of course.

Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (1/2/2011 10:53:08 PM)
Packers 10 - Bears 3 Playoffs baby! Offense Just a tough day out there against the Bears D. They did a great job disguising their defenses and confused A-Rod all game Jennings - nice comeback after that sure TD drop earlier on. Couldn't believe we couldn't punch it in from the 1 on 3 tries. I hate the Kuhn FB dive play, it's crap. Defense Season on the line and they come up huge. OLB Walden with 10 tackles 2 TFL and 2 sacks. He was a street FA too, wow. TT sure knows how to find these guys. 6 sacks on the day, great pressure all game long. Still need to do better against the run. Special Teams Masthay had one of the best punting days I've seen. He was phenominal in neutralizing Hester. Great win to get us into the playoffs, the Bears made us earn it for sure. Big tip of the cap to MM and Capers in getting this team there given the horrendous injury situation they had to deal with all season. 10-6 is a good record for this team and they earned their place in the playoffs. Looking forward to the Packers to keep carrying this momentum through the playoffs.

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 9:18:06 AM)
Injuries are part of the game The Bear hate on this board is funny. They keep winning and people keep saying they aren't that good. Perfect example "Put the Packers against the Bears in the playoffs; I'll take the Packers, easy" They just played yesterday, in Green Bay. The Bears were playing for nothing and almost won against at eam fighting for their lives. The rematch will be in Chicago and the Bears would win most likely. The Packers lack of a running game will prevent them from going deep. They can beat the Eagles. But I don't see them winning at Soldier Field with a 1 dimensional offense.

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 9:22:51 AM)
I agree John.

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 9:24:41 AM)
quote: Injuries are part of the game So true. Indianapolis had the most in the league and they made the playoffs too. Get to the point where you have to start a third string quarterback in addition to a ton of injuries and then come talk to me.

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 10:19:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lynn G. quote: Injuries are part of the game So true. Indianapolis had the most in the league and they made the playoffs too. Get to the point where you have to start a third string quarterback in addition to a ton of injuries and then come talk to me. Health for the Packers vs. the Bears is a HUGE factor this year. Sure it's part of the game, but it still matters. And the Bears were clearly trying yesterday. I don't buy the "nothing to play for" argument. It's Bears/Packers. Those teams are ALWAYS going to try against each other. Neither team is all that great, but I'd take the Packers over the Bears. The Bears will not go anywhere in the playoffs with Jay Choker at QB.

Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 10:28:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress Injuries are part of the game The Bear hate on this board is funny. They keep winning and people keep saying they aren't that good. Perfect example "Put the Packers against the Bears in the playoffs; I'll take the Packers, easy" They just played yesterday, in Green Bay. The Bears were playing for nothing and almost won against at eam fighting for their lives. The rematch will be in Chicago and the Bears would win most likely. The Packers lack of a running game will prevent them from going deep. They can beat the Eagles. But I don't see them winning at Soldier Field with a 1 dimensional offense. Disagree about the Bears. They were playing to keep GB from getting into the playoffs. They brought their A game and starters all game long, Lovie even said they were playing to win, his #1 goal from day one has been to beat GB. To say they weren't playing for anything is laughable. I've never made an excuse about injuries this season and many teams fall apart when they have as many injuries as GB has had. I've simply given the coaches credit for making great adjustments to fit their personnel. I do agree that the Packers are going to have better success at running the ball to go deep in the playoffs. However if they do beat the Iggles, they would go to Atlanta. Only way they play da Bears again is in the NFC Championship Game. Oh and Lynn, the Packers have 15 players on IR compared to 17 on the Vikes total injury report. So don't go bringing up the Vikes injury card here. It's the Vikes own fault they put their faith in a 41 yr old QB.

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 10:50:56 AM)
As I said - start a 3rd string quarterback and we'll talk.

Jeff Jesser -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 10:52:20 AM)
Yup, the Bears cared they just weren't good yesterday. GB's D got in Cutler's head and he sucks. That's what you get with Cutler. If he stays calm and unratled he's actually pretty decent. When he gets wound up and jittery he's one of the worst QB's in the game.

David Levine -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 10:53:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lynn G. As I said - start a 3rd string quarterback and we'll talk. We weren't that good when we started our first string QB...

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 11:02:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jeff Jesser Yup, the Bears cared they just weren't good yesterday. GB's D got in Cutler's head and he sucks. That's what you get with Cutler. If he stays calm and unratled he's actually pretty decent. When he gets wound up and jittery he's one of the worst QB's in the game. Yep. He'll never be a great QB. Some solid seasons maybe, but no one that's ever going to win a SuperBowl or anything.

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 11:05:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Lynn G. As I said - start a 3rd string quarterback and we'll talk. We weren't that good when we started our first string QB... Not this year, no. But the point is that when a team goes 20 years and only has to start someone other than their first string QB ONE GAME, then they don't really know what it is to have to dig deep. Everyone agrees that the QB is the most important position, right? When you never have to visit the depth chart at that position, you've got an advantage.

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 11:16:18 AM)
I don't know why this is even a discussion; the debate is Bears vs. Packers. What game did Cutler miss? The Bears were simply a much, much healthier (ie luckier) team than the Packers, and just about every other team in the league, this year. Neither team is winning the SuperBowl.

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 11:20:13 AM)
The Packers lost to Detroit, Washington, and Miami Oh yeah, the Bears won the Division It is not even open for debate unless they meet in the playoffs and the Packers win. The Bears were the better team this year

Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 1:41:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lynn G. quote: ORIGINAL: David Levine quote: ORIGINAL: Lynn G. As I said - start a 3rd string quarterback and we'll talk. We weren't that good when we started our first string QB... Not this year, no. But the point is that when a team goes 20 years and only has to start someone other than their first string QB ONE GAME, then they don't really know what it is to have to dig deep. Everyone agrees that the QB is the most important position, right? When you never have to visit the depth chart at that position, you've got an advantage. So injuries only count when the QB is involved? Riiight. Packers didn't have to dig deep when injuries forced them to sign several street FAs to fill in on the DL and LB for not just one, but multiple games. How about a few years ago when we had to start a WR named Taco Wallace because our #1, 3 and 4 WR were on IR along with our top 2 RB and we started Samkon Gado. Didn't have to dig deep then because we still had Brett apparently. I agree that the QB is THE most important position on the field, but don't go ignoring that injuries elsewhere can wreck a team.

Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 1:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress The Packers lost to Detroit, Washington, and Miami Oh yeah, the Bears won the Division It is not even open for debate unless they meet in the playoffs and the Packers win. The Bears were the better team this year Bears had a better record, true and are a good team. I still don't believe they are a better team. We'll just agree to disagree.

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 1:52:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress The Packers lost to Detroit, Washington, and Miami Oh yeah, the Bears won the Division It is not even open for debate unless they meet in the playoffs and the Packers win. The Bears were the better team this year Bears had a better record, true and are a good team. I still don't believe they are a better team. We'll just agree to disagree. Yep. I don't believe that better record always = better team. Two different things. Packers also had a much tougher schedule than the Bears, btw, which is completely ignored. Bears strength of schedule was .473, one of the easiest in the conference. Packers' SOS was .520, 4th toughest in the conference. Packers played @ATL and vs. SF. As well as getting the Patriots and Jets on the road (both were at home for the Bears). The Bears got @CAR and vs. SEA. The CAR/ATL game alone is the difference in their records. Atlanta was the 2nd best team in the league this year, especially at home. While Carolina was the worst. And the Packers, impressively, lost by just a FG there. Bears got their asses kicked by NE. Packers barely got beat, with their backup QB. I hate that I'm in the position of defending the Packers, but they're a better team than Chicago.

Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 1:59:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: djskillz quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress The Packers lost to Detroit, Washington, and Miami Oh yeah, the Bears won the Division It is not even open for debate unless they meet in the playoffs and the Packers win. The Bears were the better team this year Bears had a better record, true and are a good team. I still don't believe they are a better team. We'll just agree to disagree. Yep. I don't believe that better record always = better team. Two different things. Packers also had a much tougher schedule than the Bears, btw, which is completely ignored. Bears strength of schedule was .473, one of the easiest in the conference. Packers' SOS was .520, 4th toughest in the conference. Bears IMHO still suck. They "won" a game barely against the Lions with the backup Lions QB playing most of the game and a controversial TD reversal at the end. They couldn't punch in a TD from the one yard line on four tries. They've played better since, but aren't really that good. I have a Bears fan that sits right next to me at work here. And though he's excited about them being in the playoffs, even HE doesn't think they are that good. The team that would scare me more in the playoff right now is the Packers. and that is in the entire NFC. My SB prediction right now would be Packers/Pats. and the result would be much closer than the game they already played this year.

djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/3/2011 2:02:18 PM)
No doubt, Scott. The Bears are just not that good. Not a single tough road win all year long. The best you can argue is Miami or Dallas. They got beat handily by the Giants on the road. And I haven't even brought up the game the league gave them, to start the season, against the Lions.

Page: << < prev 87 88 [89] 90 91 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode