RE: The Packers

RE: The Packers (Full Version)

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

Message

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/9/2011 9:55:58 AM)
That was my memory as well. When Viking fans complained about the "Rape at Lambeau" game we were vilified as crybabies and whiners. But I'm not exaggerating when I say that there were probably 53 different threads on that forum complaining about the refs by the Packer fans. At least our complaints have been validated by the refs themselves when they came out later in the week and admitted they made 9 bad calls in that game that hurt the Vikings, 8 of which were in the 4th quarter. The refs validated our complaints about the game at Lambeau last year too.

Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (9/9/2011 10:44:48 AM)
If you look at the Hawk PI call, when he first starts his jump his left arm clocks Sproles in the head. That's what I think the officials called it for. After that Hawk doesn't touch him until he knocks the ball down. A real athletic play from Hawk (surprisingly) but that shot to the head was what did it, IMO. Hard for the official to ignore that and not throw the flag. I was more mad that the Pack gave them another shot at the TD.

Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/9/2011 10:48:23 AM)
I refuse to post on that thread what so ever....and a couple of Bears guys got on there and posted about it....they got skewered. Typical Packer fans with no objectivity!!!

Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/9/2011 10:50:16 AM)
Piss poor play call by the Saints.....game on the line, your at the one and you put everyone bunched up on the line and showing the pukers your gonna run. Wrong personnel, wrong formation, wrong play!

Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/9/2011 10:51:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ed_Marotske I refuse to post on that thread what so ever....and a couple of Bears guys got on there and posted about it....they got skewered. Typical Packer fans with no objectivity!!! Except you Craig....sometimes! [&:]

Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/9/2011 10:59:38 AM)
One has to wonder though if the league hasn't already annointed the clean cut, can do no wrong puckers as the new Patriots. Woodson throws a punch and nobody does a thing about it? Should have been thrown out of the game and suspended for a week.....bet that ass clown doesn't even get fined!

Rob Viking -> RE: The Packers (9/9/2011 11:18:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig If you look at the Hawk PI call, when he first starts his jump his left arm clocks Sproles in the head. That's what I think the officials called it for. After that Hawk doesn't touch him until he knocks the ball down. A real athletic play from Hawk (surprisingly) but that shot to the head was what did it, IMO. Hard for the official to ignore that and not throw the flag. I was more mad that the Pack gave them another shot at the TD. Wound up being a game saving play in the end, as Sproles would've probably caught the ball.

marty -> RE: The Packers (9/10/2011 1:31:59 AM)
I guess I really should posted this here: Packer fans don't understand the PI rules because in 2009 their 2ndary committed PI on EVERY pass play. Last year, they cut it down to committing PI on about 75% of pass plays and on the other 25% of them played the ball VERY well. Adding Cobb and getting Michael Finley back makes the Pack MORE explosive than the team that won the SB. Rodgers also looks to be playing with more confidence now. They are a very strong team, and can win in so many different ways. They are good at getting turnovers from their defense, and will benefit from being percieved as being good, thus getting more favorable officiating (even though I thought N.O. benefitted slightly in this game [it was a very well officiated game], I think it will be the exception and the Packers will be likely to be the benefactors of favorable officiating throughout the season). Curious to know the reason for Rodgers inability to pour it on? Is it conservative playcalling? Defensive adjustments? Complacency? I think McCarthy went conservative in the playoff games and in this home opener, and will probably continue doing that because it has worked, bringing key victories. I also don't think Rodgers is like Favre with quickness, is not super clutch with 2nd half 3rd down throws, but instead relies more on deep passes and using his running to get first downs. Remember, in the SB, he didn't put away the Steelers with a TD pass, but instead benefitted from his defense stopping Big Ben (which didn't happen the previous time the Pack played the Steelers and the Steelers won that one). I think there are areas where Rodgers can improve, and if he improves in a few of those areas, he might throw more than 50 TD passes any season. This year, Rodgers seems more confident, and I think his WRs will drop very few passes, and are playing hard for him like Viking WRs did for Favre's 1st year in Minnesota. So even if Rodgers doesn't improve in those areas I mentioned, he could well throw more than 50 TDs this year as he has a career year. IF he improves in those areas THIS year, then maybe it's SIXTY TD passes. .... or he gets injured next week .... stay tuned ....

marty -> RE: The Packers (9/10/2011 1:46:53 AM)
I thought Brees played a great game, and Payton called a good game. The same could be said of Rodgers and McCarthy. If I were Payton, about the only I would have done differently is have Pierre Thomas run both of those short yardage plays where they called the rookie. Thomas is a GREAT runner that really fights for yards, he was sort of dissed by them trading up for a RB, but you can't blame them as Bush and Thomas had trouble staying healthy. But I think it would have sent a more team oriented message, and one that they still have faith in Thomas to pick up tough yards if they had him carry one or BOTH of those short yardage carries. Maybe it was the right call going with the bigger back, but the Pack just played it well. The Pack made MANY stops like that up the gut last year. Play action seems like a smarter call, but Brees did get burned by 2 blitzing LBers earlier in the game on short yardage. Matthews is a handful if you get behind in the score against the Pack. It is much better if you can be ahead, get some big bodies pounding him and keep running the ball, I think that is a good way to attack the Pack. The Saints did good job of doing enough runs to keep the Pack from teeing off on Brees. When is the last time a team from 2 years previously won a SB ? I'm too lazy to look it up right now. Perhaps they should have the team from 2 years previously HOST the SB Champs, or have the SB loser HOST the SB champs in the opener ? It might be challenging, and more interesting that way, as the SB winners have won, what, the last 8 openers since they started doing it this way.

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (9/10/2011 12:29:15 PM)
Rodgers is a BETTER QB than Favre Make no mistake about it.

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (9/10/2011 12:30:04 PM)
The Saints had terrible calls on 4th down. They also need to draft a big time WR. Their WRs are all 2nd tier guys The Packers offense with Finley looks almost unstoppable

marty -> RE: The Packers (9/11/2011 10:50:19 AM)
Rodgers is a BETTER QB than Favre Overall, I agree that is true. However, he CAN improve in some areas, and I think that would involve a quicker short game and converting on 3rd downs. The Pack might look unstoppable right now, but they might not look that way after an injury or two.

SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (9/11/2011 3:16:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress The Saints had terrible calls on 4th down. They also need to draft a big time WR. Their WRs are all 2nd tier guys The Packers offense with Finley looks almost unstoppable Thats what I kept thinking too. Almost unstoppable O, and not a superstar anywhere around (catching the ball, anyway) Everyone does it differently. Their scheme is just damn tough to contain. Both those offenses will get DCs fired this year.

marty -> RE: The Packers (9/12/2011 10:36:10 PM)
Colston is a great WR, just the Packers main defensive focus was to stop Colston. Colston burned the Packers well the last time they met, where the Saints won something like 80-60.

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2011 5:21:39 AM)
Colston isn't close to a great WR In fact, he is less effective now than he was as a rookie And Payton is not a great game caller - that was an incredibly bad play call with the game on the line

Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2011 7:12:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty Rodgers is a BETTER QB than Favre Overall, I agree that is true. However, he CAN improve in some areas, and I think that would involve a quicker short game and converting on 3rd downs. The Pack might look unstoppable right now, but they might not look that way after an injury or two. The Pack is not unstoppable. Please. They have a good offense...but the Saints rolled up a lot of yards on them and were right there at the end. The Packers have exploitable flaws. and an injury or two could completely derail them.

JT2 -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2011 9:21:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: marty Rodgers is a BETTER QB than Favre Overall, I agree that is true. However, he CAN improve in some areas, and I think that would involve a quicker short game and converting on 3rd downs. The Pack might look unstoppable right now, but they might not look that way after an injury or two. The Pack is not unstoppable. Please. They have a good offense...but the Saints rolled up a lot of yards on them and were right there at the end. The Packers have exploitable flaws. and an injury or two could completely derail them. Like last year?

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2011 4:35:12 PM)
You can't get objective Packers analysis here They are clearly the best team in the NFL and people here can't man up about it

Jeff Jesser -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2011 4:38:19 PM)
I would say them or BMore but I actually expected more out of BMore last year too.

David Levine -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2011 4:55:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: marty The Pack might look unstoppable right now, but they might not look that way after an injury or two. You can say that about EVERY good team.

Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2011 6:57:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress You can't get objective Packers analysis here They are clearly the best team in the NFL and people here can't man up about it Anyone who wants to read slathering about the Packers probably needs to go to a Packers board. They're not objective there either, but you'll get your fill of a lips planted all over their behinds.

thebigo -> RE: The Packers (9/13/2011 9:10:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lynn G. quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress You can't get objective Packers analysis here They are clearly the best team in the NFL and people here can't man up about it Anyone who wants to read slathering about the Packers probably needs to go to a Packers board. They're not objective there either, but you'll get your fill of a lips planted all over their behinds. [&:]

Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (9/14/2011 6:53:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JT2 quote: ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott quote: ORIGINAL: marty Rodgers is a BETTER QB than Favre Overall, I agree that is true. However, he CAN improve in some areas, and I think that would involve a quicker short game and converting on 3rd downs. The Pack might look unstoppable right now, but they might not look that way after an injury or two. The Pack is not unstoppable. Please. They have a good offense...but the Saints rolled up a lot of yards on them and were right there at the end. The Packers have exploitable flaws. and an injury or two could completely derail them. Like last year? Last year they damn near didn't make the playoffs. People sometimes forget that. They squeaked in and went on a roll. They are good, but not unstoppable.

JT2 -> RE: The Packers (9/14/2011 7:04:06 AM)
I was referring to how they handled placing 15 players on Injured Reserve last season. If we ever win the Super Bowl by barely making the playoffs, that won't tarnish the accomplishment in my eyes. What about you?

John Childress -> RE: The Packers (9/14/2011 7:56:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lynn G. quote: ORIGINAL: John Childress You can't get objective Packers analysis here They are clearly the best team in the NFL and people here can't man up about it Anyone who wants to read slathering about the Packers probably needs to go to a Packers board. They're not objective there either, but you'll get your fill of a lips planted all over their behinds. No People want to read objective posts The whole "I hate everything Packers' should be left in high schol Most people mature

Page: << < prev 95 96 [97] 98 99 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode