RE: The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message

marty -> RE: The Packers (2/1/2011 7:54:52 AM)

I saw a similar article about the Bears before they LOST to the Colts in the SB. The Bears were going to be DOMINANT for many years, they were young and were clearly the class of the division. After losing the SB, they did NOT win the division the next year.

I'm torn between my brain which says the Packers on turf and Pouncy out, the Packers will probably win in a blowout, and my gut, which says the Steelers will win.

My gut is looking at the fact that one QB is pretty clutch, while the other one is more likely to get hurt or come up short if the game is on the line. And it should be a close game, as I think Tomlin is a good coach that should have his team ready. There was a time when I thought McCarthy would NEVER win a SB, but I thought the same of Andy Ried, Mike Tice, Brad Childress and Tony Dungy. I was WRONG on Dungy, so I'll probably end up being wrong on McCarthy, we'll see.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (2/1/2011 8:40:09 AM)

I disagree 100% Marty

MOST people said the Bears were a fluke team BEFORE they even got to the SB



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (2/1/2011 8:59:56 AM)

The Packers BARELY even made it into the playoffs if you recall. They had to win the last game of the season to get in, and had the refs called the Viking game correctly they would NOT have gotten in.

They played their best football AFTER getting into the playoffs, no doubt. The question is whether or not they already peaked and whether they can sustain their run for one more game.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (2/1/2011 9:45:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

Thanks JC.

Pretty close with the Pats. I don't why I picked 4 years, it could just as well have been 5. After so many years, it's almost a different group of guys.

It does go to show that, perhaps, it is hard for teams that lost the SB, to come back and win one. I wonder if teams that lost in the NFC or AFC Championship games fare better than teams that lost in the SB, as far as winning it all in the next 5 years ????

I wonder how that has played out in, say, the last 15 years ?


There is something deflating about losing a SB

Many of them don't even make the playoffs the next year

Look at the ATL team that beat us in 98

The Raiders who lost to TB

Some of them completely fall apart



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (2/1/2011 9:48:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

The Packers BARELY even made it into the playoffs if you recall. They had to win the last game of the season to get in, and had the refs called the Viking game correctly they would NOT have gotten in.

They played their best football AFTER getting into the playoffs, no doubt. The question is whether or not they already peaked and whether they can sustain their run for one more game.


If you play the "what if" game then the Packers were also won blown call on a Calvin Johnson TD from winning the NFC North. The Bears at 10-6 would have lost the tiebreaker to the Giants and not even been in the playoffs.



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (2/1/2011 10:03:00 AM)

The point was that they didn't steam roll their way into the playoffs.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (2/1/2011 10:10:06 AM)

The original point is that if you look at the Packers roster, they are better than the Vikings at every single area except RB

And they are a younger team with a stud QB

The ONLY thing stopping them from competing for SBs would be concussions to Rodgers

Barring that - the Vikings have a ton of catching up to do.

The biggest problem of the Vikings is philosophy

You have to build from the ground up.



Jon Thomas -> RE: The Packers (2/1/2011 11:44:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

The original point is that if you look at the Packers roster, they are better than the Vikings at every single area except RB

And they are a younger team with a stud QB

The ONLY thing stopping them from competing for SBs would be concussions to Rodgers

Barring that - the Vikings have a ton of catching up to do.

The biggest problem of the Vikings is philosophy

You have to build from the ground up.


John, I think McGinn's point in the initial article was on a much broader scale than just the roster... indeed in all facets of the organization the Packers are operating from a position of strength.  That's significant and leaves us with a lot of catching up to do.

Here's McGinn's quote again:

Think about the 68 players (69 with Johnny Jolly) under contract to the Packers. Consider the coaching, the personnel department, management, financial resources, facilities and fan support. In all areas, Green Bay basically is as good as it gets right now ...







  



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (2/1/2011 12:42:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jon Thomas

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

The original point is that if you look at the Packers roster, they are better than the Vikings at every single area except RB

And they are a younger team with a stud QB

The ONLY thing stopping them from competing for SBs would be concussions to Rodgers

Barring that - the Vikings have a ton of catching up to do.

The biggest problem of the Vikings is philosophy

You have to build from the ground up.


John, I think McGinn's point in the initial article was on a much broader scale than just the roster... indeed in all facets of the organization the Packers are operating from a position of strength.  That's significant and leaves us with a lot of catching up to do.

Here's McGinn's quote again:

Think about the 68 players (69 with Johnny Jolly) under contract to the Packers. Consider the coaching, the personnel department, management, financial resources, facilities and fan support. In all areas, Green Bay basically is as good as it gets right now ...







  


I agree with that.

They are set up right



marty -> RE: The Packers (2/1/2011 8:19:35 PM)

Since GB is a small market team, and just a few years ago there was concern that they wouldn't be able to compete financially with some of the wealthy owners, maybe it DOES make sense that the NFL would want the Packers to have success, and wanted them in the SB this year ?

JC, I know you don't agree with what I was saying about the Bears, I'm just saying I read an article on them, and remember one of the networks at the time talked before their SB appearance about how young their defense was, how they had all the guys signed, how they made it to the SB even with a weak QB, how they might DOMINATE for the next few years, and then what happened ? They did not even win the division the next year.

Should the Packers LOSE the SB, things could fall apart in a hurry for them. Maybe Finley leaves the team upset that he wasn't included in the team photograph, or just ends up having a career being injury prone every year. Maybe next year the Packers once again have the injury bug and don't make the playoffs.

Maybe they let James Jones go, Driver retires, and Jennings gets hurt in game 2. How do you think their season then would play out next year ? Jordy Nelson as the #1 WR, the fear of SB losing QB Rodgers getting another concussion is on everyones' mind. The Lions are on the uprise, the Bears will be just as strong, maybe stronger if Cutler gets used more used to Martz's system, or Haney becomes the starter, and they add a good WR. The Vikes bounce back quickly as they sign Peyton Manning, or Webb starts coming on mid-season.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (2/6/2011 10:56:23 PM)

Packers 31 - Steelers 25

SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS!!!!

No breakdowns this game. It's all good.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 7:57:53 AM)

CONGRATS CRAIG

The Packers were the best team of the year and deserved it.

They shut down the best QBs in the NFL.

THe offense gets all they hype but to me the championship was won by that defense



Richard Neussendorfer -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 12:52:13 PM)

Anyone still think Rodgers arm is suspect? He was throwing lasers yesterday and putting the ball right on the money.

He could have EASILY had 5 TD passes yesterday against a defense that is VERY good. Congratulations to the pack.

If only one day we could get a young good QB......



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 5:02:45 PM)

Exactly Richard

It is embarrassing actually to be associated with some of the fans here who were doggin' Rodgers all year long.

What QB would you take over him?



djskillz -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 5:59:19 PM)

To say that Rodgers doesn't have the arm strength or overall athletic talent of Vick is NOT an insult. The discussion about Rodgers was not "dogging" him at all. I said he's a top 5 QB in the sport.

I'd still take Brady and Peyton over him at least. That may change in a couple of years. These things take time. But he's a very, very good QB and the Packers are lucky to have him. Sucks that we don't.



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 6:03:03 PM)

And how embarrassing that so many people were touting Tomlin like he was the picture of an all-star coach? Sounds like he didn't do a very good job of having his team ready for the most important game of their year.



Duane Sampson -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 6:33:16 PM)

Congrats to the Pack! They give all teams hope. Plus... Erin has the SB MVP that cheesebillytextwrangler couldn't get. [&:]



SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 7:32:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

And how embarrassing that so many people were touting Tomlin like he was the picture of an all-star coach? Sounds like he didn't do a very good job of having his team ready for the most important game of their year.


I'm supposed to be embarassed for touting Tomlin?
Seriously? Now who's over-emphasizing one game?
I'll put his very young career up against almost anyone.
I'll gladly take the worst of him over anything we've had lately.



djskillz -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 7:40:04 PM)

In total agreement there. Tomlin's a stud. Wish we still had him. Hopefully Frazier is half the coach he is.



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 7:58:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

And how embarrassing that so many people were touting Tomlin like he was the picture of an all-star coach? Sounds like he didn't do a very good job of having his team ready for the most important game of their year.


Tomlin didn't do a good job this year?

You would be all alone in that opinion

Let's see

* No starting QB for 1/4 of the season
* Troy P out for 1/4th of season
* Bad offensive line
* Lost Pro Bowl C


And still took team to SB and lost by one score


Give us some more of your football knowledge please



John Childress -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 8:00:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

And how embarrassing that so many people were touting Tomlin like he was the picture of an all-star coach? Sounds like he didn't do a very good job of having his team ready for the most important game of their year.


I'm supposed to be embarassed for touting Tomlin?
Seriously? Now who's over-emphasizing one game?
I'll put his very young career up against almost anyone.
I'll gladly take the worst of him over anything we've had lately.


There is not a single person who knows a shred of football in this country who doesn't think Tomlin is an excellent football coach

How did Mike Smith, Andy Reid, and Lovie Smith do against GB?



Richard Neussendorfer -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 9:14:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoMnFan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

And how embarrassing that so many people were touting Tomlin like he was the picture of an all-star coach? Sounds like he didn't do a very good job of having his team ready for the most important game of their year.


I'm supposed to be embarassed for touting Tomlin?
Seriously? Now who's over-emphasizing one game?
I'll put his very young career up against almost anyone.
I'll gladly take the worst of him over anything we've had lately.


There is not a single person who knows a shred of football in this country who doesn't think Tomlin is an excellent football coach

How did Mike Smith, Andy Reid, and Lovie Smith do against GB?

I'm not a big fan of Mike Smith but I think your overall point still stands. Tomlin, IMO, is easily a top 5 coach in the league. He's got class to boot.

I loved that he didn't make a bunch of excuses when they lost. I don't trust Frazier but maybe with an offseason and his own training camp things might look a little different.

I'm holding onto some hope.



SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 9:31:55 PM)

The personal responsibility that Tomlin preaches is (to me) his greatest asset.
You'll never hear excuses, you'll most always get an honest effort, from his teams.
Huge in today's sports. Good points Richard.



Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (2/7/2011 9:53:44 PM)

Settle down kids. I didn't say he wasn't an excellent coach. But the way some have talked about him you'd think he was the most amazing thing that has ever happened to football. Yep - we had him for a year and lost him because some other team was ready to elevate him to head coach. He inherited a team that had just won the Superbowl, and he did a fine job keeping them playing at a high level.



Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (2/8/2011 9:52:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

CONGRATS CRAIG

The Packers were the best team of the year and deserved it.

They shut down the best QBs in the NFL.

THe offense gets all they hype but to me the championship was won by that defense

Agree. The defense is what carried the team all season.

I got real nervous when both Woodson and Shields went out on consecutive plays. Capers really earned his paycheck by having to completely redo the defensive plan at halftime when that happened.

I loved his comments about that last Pitts drive when he said that he was sending 5 guys every play at Big Ben and go down swinging rather than lay back and have 8 in coverage. Hope that someone gets through or make Ben throw the shorter stuff. To me, Capers showed that he's a top 3 DC right now.



Page: <<   < prev  93 94 [95] 96 97   next >   >>



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode