RE: The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/20/2011 7:24:24 AM)

I am a big Vick 2.0 fan. Yeah, he made a bad throw at the end of the game but if Akers doesn't miss 2 FGs, one easy, Vick is just setting up the FG on that play for the win.

But with all that said, I would take Rodgers over Vick in a heartbeat. Right now, I don't know if there is a QB I would take over him. Yeah, Brady gets all the hype but when you really analyze his work this year it was all done within 10 yards of the LOS. That is not great. People talk about how teams shut Vick down by blitzing, well the Jets laid the book out for beating Brady. That last TD was garbage time. Brady was held to 14 points at home.

Give me the guy who can make the throws down the field. Part of the reason Moss was frustrated in NE this year is Brady is not as accurate down the field as he was pre-injury



marty -> RE: The Packers (1/20/2011 8:43:56 AM)

My initial feeling was the Pack is playing so well there is almost NO WAY they lose to the Bears. Now I have some doubts.

First of all, Lovie has made it a priority to beat the Pack since day 1. The Bears blitz much more than Atlanta on defense, and are more physical. I think the Bears are insulted when people talk about them not having any talent, and they have MORE talent than their SB team with Peppers and Cutler aboard. They also, MIGHT be insulted with so many Packer fans at the stadium, and would want to show them that it is the BEARS' house!

I was hoping for the Bears to be a 3 or 4 point favorite so it would be more likely the betting was on GB, and then the officials' might help the Bears. As it is, with the Pack by 3 or 3 1/2, I think it's most likely the refs are neutral, or favor the Pack as they are the percieved better team.

I think the team that passes better is generally percieved as being the better team. That ignores run game, defense, special teams, coaching, etc.... I still remember when the Vikes had a MUCH better passing game than the Bears about 18 years ago, but Ditka would come in and run 20 straight plays and beat the heavily favored Vikes. Weather COULD play a factor in this one (GB/Chicago).



marty -> RE: The Packers (1/20/2011 8:59:51 AM)

Aaron Rodgers

He is playing GREAT right now, but I think there are a few caveats.

In close games, he hasn't usually elevated his play, but it COULD be because his defense fell short so many times last year. But it IS possible he doesn't have the right makeup to win close games. As soon as Atlanta looked like they might be making a push in last weeks' game, Rodgers got hit hard, and you wondered how soon McCarthy would be pulling him.

A myth that started in the last game by an announcer (probably because Rodgers has been so successful lately): that Rodgers has a quick release. I do NOT think he has a quick release, he is now making quicker decisions, and smart decisions, but I do NOT think his release is all that quick. He is getting sacked much less because he is more decisive and not holding on to the ball.

Following my injury theory, that players 'allow' themselves to be hurt, I think it's quite possible that Rodgers allowed himself to be hurt so he could miss the Patriot game. I think he figured with the way the Patriots were playing, it was likely the Packers would lose there, and didn't want his team associating him with losing, that when he is starting, the team usually wins.

Now should it be a close game, and Rodgers is taking a beating and feels it's likely his team will lose, he might 'allow' himself to get hurt and taken out of the game. IF it's a close game, and Flynn only needs to get say one TD and a FG, I think Matt Flynn COULD pull out the game against a mediocre Bears' 2ndary. It's quite possible, that as great as Rodgers is, Flynn has some mental toughness that Rodgers does NOT possess. But I do realize this IS unlikely, as Flynn probably does NOT have the reps to make an easy go of it.

It's also quite possible that Cutler allows himself to get injured, but I think with him it would be likely MUCH earlier in the game, where he feels his team is likely to be blown out, and then he has to face Matthews 'bearing' down on him every play.

I WAS going to predict an injury to one of the QBs, but now believe that BOTH teams are better at running the ball than they were early in the season, so it's unlikely that they are overly reliant on the pass to where their QB is likely to get hurt. But I think with pass rushers like Peppers and Matthews, these guys could take a beating.



djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/20/2011 9:17:36 AM)

I think Brady throwing close to the LOS has a lot more to do with his receivers than him. He didn't really have dynamic receivers this year.

Give him Greg Jennings, Donald Driver and James Jones and see what he does.



jinxi -> RE: The Packers (1/20/2011 8:49:18 PM)

this season, Brady has undergo so much injury,so also has the menace to play.but i think it cannot affect that he will get the MVP.
_______________________________
retail jerseys,nfl wholesale jersey



John Childress -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/22/2011 3:38:44 PM)

quote:

The Packers secondary has been exceptional thus far in the postseason, but they do need to sure up some holes there.

Having a secondary of Asomugha, Charles Woodson and Tramon Williams would be any defensive coaches dream. One huge factor for a move to the Packers is Asomugha’s close friendship with Woodson.

The Packers might not have the biggest need for Asomugha, but they certainly have a want for him.


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/580905-2011-nfl-free-agency-rumors-10-teams-in-play-for-nnamdi-asomugha#page/9



djskillz -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/22/2011 5:47:52 PM)

Not exactly the most reliable source, JC. [;)]



Lynn G. -> RE: RE:The Packers (1/22/2011 8:26:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Not exactly the most reliable source, JC. [;)]


True. They used "sure up" when they meant "shore up." You don't expect mistakes like that in a journalistic endeavor.



thebigo -> RE: The Packers (1/22/2011 8:37:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jinxi

this season, Brady has undergo so much injury,so also has the menace to play.but i think it cannot affect that he will get the MVP.
_______________________________
retail jerseys,nfl wholesale jersey


jinxi, can you elaborate?



Todd M -> RE: The Packers (1/22/2011 8:46:14 PM)

Weird that his sig shows up when you quote his post.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (1/22/2011 11:45:39 PM)

I don't think Asuginormica comes to GB. It's not in TT's style to sign a player for as much cash as he'll have to pay out for him. Add in what to do with Shields, who is playing nickel back most of the season and has been a real find and deserves the playing time with his very good performance, plus for a lot less money. Also, will Woodson be agreeable to go to safety? Because if Asugarsugar comes aboard, that's where Woodson will have to go.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/23/2011 6:42:00 AM)

I guess it depends on how many miles Packers management feels Woodson has left at CB. He still looks very good to me but at his age a guy can drop off almost overnight at a skill position like CB. Look at how fast Lito Shepherd dropped off the face of the earth. Of course Woodson is much stronger and bigger than Lito.

I see the Eagles as a possible spot for him also

The article is mentioning places like Houston or Detroit but no way does a 29 year old player sign somehwere with no shot to win a title unless he already has one.



marty -> RE: The Packers (1/23/2011 8:04:11 AM)

Why wouldn't a team like the Vikes get Asomugha ?

They have an ownership that is willing to go after FAs, and could then move Winfield to Safety.

I know the Vikes should have a franchise QB so he feels like he's going to a team that can compete. I think the Vikes could sign Vince Young (at least enough name recognition so it will be thought they have a shot), and THEN get Asomugha.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/23/2011 9:22:08 AM)

Until the Vikings lock down a QB it is going to be hard to land free agents who are older and want to win now.

Like Dustin said, guys coming off rookie contracts who have time to grow with the team are better options.



djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/23/2011 11:18:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

Until the Vikings lock down a QB it is going to be hard to land free agents who are older and want to win now.

Like Dustin said, guys coming off rookie contracts who have time to grow with the team are better options.


Ya. And not even just in "our" situation, IMO. I think that's the approach any team should take. Young guys coming into their primes give your team a lot longer window.

I'd still take Nnamdi if we can get him, depending on cost. I don't see him in GB. But it'll be interesting to see who the big bidders are.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (1/23/2011 7:41:41 PM)

Packers 21- Bears 14
Super Bowl Baby!!!

Offense
  • Rodgers had a big first half but just sputtered in the 2nd half. It appeared the pass rush was getting to him and he started looking at that. That INT to Urlacher was inexcusable.
  • Jennings was huge.
  • I was encouraged with the huge running lanes in the first half. Second half blocking was poor.

    Defense
  • BJ Raji was a beast. His INT TD was obviously a game changing play.
  • Cullen Jenkins was disruptive all game long
  • Sam Shields - from UFA to NFCCG stud.
  • Very impressed with Bishop and Hawk, especially Bishop.

    Special Teams
  • Punts and punt coverage were fantastic. Hester was a non-factor in that regard
  • Not the biggest fan of the line drive kickoffs when the Bears get the ball around the 40 because the up man at the 30 grabs the ball.

    Overall this was a very typical Packer/Bear game. Defense-oriented with lots of big hits. I thought McCarthy didn't do a real good job in the 2nd half with his playcalling. It was obviously good enough given the win, but I thought the big shots down field weren't needed. Anywho, it really doesn't matter now 'cause the Pack are going to the Super Bowl!!!



    • John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/23/2011 7:45:40 PM)

    COngrats Craig

    The Packers proved they are clearly the best team in the NFC

    Good luck



    djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/23/2011 8:21:26 PM)

    Congrats, Craig. No doubt you guys were easily the best team in our division this year, and you deserve to represent the NFC in the SB.



    marty -> RE: The Packers (1/23/2011 9:11:10 PM)

    The Packers were NOT clearly the best team in the division.

    I don't think GB is FAR superior to the Bears, they're almost evenly matched. All 3 games they played this year were very close, and in this game, the Bears nearly beat the Packers + the officials with a 3rd string QB.

    IF the Pack had to rely on Rodgers to pull out this game, had the Bears scored, I do NOT think he would have pulled out the game. I'm not so sure Rodgers will win the SB if his team is behind in the 4th quarter. He usually performs poorly in that situation, but has been bailed out by his defense.

    I think some people make the mistake of thinking a team is FAR superior to another because it has a better QB. Well there is still coaching, defense, the run game, WRs, special teams, etc ....



    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (1/23/2011 9:43:27 PM)

    Thanks JC and DJ! If either of you ever get to the Cities, let me know and we'll go out and have one.



    John Childress -> RE: The Packers (1/23/2011 10:36:46 PM)

    The Packers are the best in the NFC this year, possibly the NFL

    Then they get Barnett, Finley, and Grant back next year!

    Could be a long season for the purple



    djskillz -> RE: The Packers (1/23/2011 10:53:06 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: marty

    The Packers were NOT clearly the best team in the division.

    I don't think GB is FAR superior to the Bears, they're almost evenly matched. All 3 games they played this year were very close, and in this game, the Bears nearly beat the Packers + the officials with a 3rd string QB.

    IF the Pack had to rely on Rodgers to pull out this game, had the Bears scored, I do NOT think he would have pulled out the game. I'm not so sure Rodgers will win the SB if his team is behind in the 4th quarter. He usually performs poorly in that situation, but has been bailed out by his defense.

    I think some people make the mistake of thinking a team is FAR superior to another because it has a better QB. Well there is still coaching, defense, the run game, WRs, special teams, etc ....


    1st part; People keep bringing this up as if it hurt Chicago. It probably helped them in this game.

    2nd part: Most of which GB is better in.

    They're a better team even without a few of their best players. That tells you all you need to know.


    Craig, you're on, man.



    marty -> RE: The Packers (1/24/2011 7:39:58 AM)

    Every team has injuries. I'm not sure Grant is any better than Starks. Maybe GB loses Woodson, Rodgers or Matthews for much time next year ? They won't necessarily be better next year because they get a few of those guys back. I think Finley will be injury prone his entire career.

    I think Chicago excels in several of those areas over GB. Chicago almost dominated the 4th quarter, and might have had the refs not helped GB so much. Actually, GB got quite a bit of help BEFORE the 4th quarter.



    Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (1/24/2011 7:51:29 AM)

    quote:

    1st part; People keep bringing this up as if it hurt Chicago. It probably helped them in this game.


    That third string QB threw two key interceptions that sealed the game for the Packers. How can you say it helped them?



    Todd M -> RE: The Packers (1/24/2011 7:58:21 AM)

    Because they were down 14-0 and flat lining with Cutler. Amazing that an unknown 3rd stringer could even get them in the game.



    Page: <<   < prev  91 92 [93] 94 95   next >   >>



    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode