RE: The Packers (Full Version)

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



Message


Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/14/2011 8:13:11 AM)

Seriously - go to a Packers board and check it out. You most definitely will NOT find objective there.

Don't you think that most fans talk about their division rivals this way?




Andy Lowe -> RE: The Packers (9/14/2011 8:38:36 AM)

And can we please stop seeing the Randall Cobb kick-off return.

It was plain and simple an ILLEGAL play......watch the highlight. Watch how John Kuhn keeps Cobb up. You cannot do that.

Amazing, how the refs give them calls.




JT2 -> RE: The Packers (9/14/2011 8:46:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Lowe

And can we please stop seeing the Randall Cobb kick-off return.

It was plain and simple an ILLEGAL play......watch the highlight. Watch how John Kuhn keeps Cobb up. You cannot do that.

Amazing, how the refs give them calls.



When is the last time you have seen that called on ANY team?
That's one of those rules that just seems to be ignored all together, especially when a RB is aided near the goal line.




Trekgeekscott -> RE: The Packers (9/14/2011 10:46:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

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?


Where did I say that it tarnished the accomplishment?

I said they are not unstoppable.  The Packers are not some juggernaut...that's all I am saying. 

They will be good and tough to beat.  But are not unbeatable.  That defense gave up a lot of yards. 

They are vulnerable.




Andy Lowe -> RE: The Packers (9/14/2011 1:21:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: JT2

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?


Where did I say that it tarnished the accomplishment?

I said they are not unstoppable.  The Packers are not some juggernaut...that's all I am saying. 

They will be good and tough to beat.  But are not unbeatable.  That defense gave up a lot of yards. 

They are vulnerable.


The losing 15 players to IR, was kind of joke. They didn't lose anyone of any significance.

Finley's decent, but not a real difference maker. Grant is a dime a dozen player. Barnett was so good, he was cut.




JT2 -> RE: The Packers (9/14/2011 2:55:19 PM)

I think the point was that they overcame a significant number of injuries last season. (In fact, I think they either set, or tied the record for most games missed (due to injury) by starters in one season.

They didn't lose anyone of any significance? Who did they lose for the season, 7 or 8 starters? That will test the depth of any team.

Finley's decent? Just decent? Sure, he's no Rudolph, but I think the entire league thinks of him as more than "decent".




Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (9/15/2011 9:12:41 AM)

Should be interesting to see how Cam Newton does vs the Pack this weekend. I have a strong feeling that the defense will get back on track for the Pack.




Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/15/2011 1:39:09 PM)

I doubt a freshman QB can come up big two weeks in a row. Now everyone has seen the film on Newton and the Carolina offense and I'm betting they don't stand a chance. You have a gimme this week Craig.




David Levine -> RE: The Packers (9/15/2011 1:45:54 PM)

TJack threw for 4 TDs against the Cardinals in a game...




marty -> RE: The Packers (9/18/2011 4:30:28 PM)

Newton made some fantastic plays, but also made some really bad plays and bad throws. He didn't look confident at crunchtime, and the Packers looked like champs, like they know what to do at crunchtime.

The Packers were flagged a lot, and pretty much every flag seemed legitimate except where Bishop was called for a late hit on the QB in the 2nd quarter. I thought that was unfair, but then they flagged a Panther for almost the same thing later in the 2nd half. There was plenty of PI called on the Pack, but they also called several picks on the Panther WRs. Lots of activity with the Packer 2ndary, that's a norm.

If these 2 calls weren't so significant, I wouldn't mention them:

1) Carolina probably would have had an easy FG before the half, but on a 3rd down conversion, a Carolina WR was flagged for offensive PI that was as one announcer said, 'the kind of checking you see on every play', and the defender could have also been flagged on the same play. Maybe THIS was a makeup call for the late hit penalty on Bishop (but the Packers also got the same call in the 2nd half), or the refs feeling like they have to make a call with all the contact going on, along with plenty of jawing, when the Packer 2ndary is on the field.

2) 12:54 left to go in the 4th quarter, Panthers with the ball on the Packers' 35, and Newton throws from the 42 to Steve Smith at the 4 yard line. Charles Woodson has his arm across Steve Smith's body and his left hand is on top of Steve Smith's left hand preventing it from moving up. Woodson trips, and after he releases, Smith stops quickly (maybe that's what made Woodson fall) and just about makes an amazing catch at the 4 yard line. Smith still could have caught the ball after the interference, but couldn't hang onto it.

It was obvious PI to on Woodson, and a flag was thrown. Then the officials had a conference and decided there was no foul for PI ???? A commentator stated, "you know what, I like that. I like that right there. When you've got Steve Smith, and you've got Charles Woodson, two great players just BATTLING it out down the field for the football in the air, man let 'em play a little bit. Let's not nitpick. I like that pickup right there of the flag. "

I couldn't disagree more with that announcer. The problem is, Steve Smith did NOTHING to Woodson, no pushoff, he just stopped quickly. Watching in slo-mo, Woodson tripped on his own feet or just fell down. Woodson clearly interfered, and it would have been more obvious if the ball had come a tad sooner. Smith still had a chance to catch the ball, but had to reset himself after the contact, and almost adjusted to make the catch.

The problem with this 'just let them play', is that there are rules, and if a defender is allowed to do all that, what Woodson did, it gives them an unfair advantage. Woodson had also gotten away with a clear hands to the face at the line of scrimmage earlier in the game, and who knows what else. Now, I suppose you could have the refs go to other teams CBs before the game and tell them that THEY will be allowed in this game to make more contact and interference before the ball gets there because we will be allowing Woodson to do it, but maybe those defenders aren't used to being allowed to doing that much in other games.

I think the Panthers probably would have found a way to lose the game, even if the refs had went the other way on these 2 mentioned calls. They were just a poor offensive PI call, and a poor decision to not enforce the PI rule on Woodson, I'm not sure why. Maybe it's because the Pack are champs, or they don't want to overdo PI calls, or the fact that Smith still could have made the catch, and the interference didn't occur the moment the ball came into Smith's hands ? I think it's still interference, and it should have been called.




Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (9/18/2011 5:04:08 PM)

Packers 30 - Panthers 23

Offense
  • Rodgers is still pretty damn good.  Although he seemed to look at the rush a bit too often when I thought he just needed to slide a bit.
  • James Starks is proving to be the new starter.  He just seems quicker than Grant and is able to see the field better.
  • All Jordy Nelson does is make big plays.
  • I think the entire Packer OL succeeded in getting called for a penalty this game. [X(]
  • Whenever Cobb touches the ball, one gets that feeling that he could take it to the house.  His speed is just fantastic.

    Defense
  • Absolute stonewalling of the run game.
  • Got shredded again through the air.  That's a big concern.
  • I'm officially worried about the pass rush.  They just can't seem to get there.
  • Hope Nick Collins is ok. 
  • Once again had a big goal line stand when needed.
  • Four turnovers.  Good to see that opportunistic defense back.

    Special Teams
  • Cobb's gotta hold on to the ball.
  • Other than that, I thought ST was outstanding.

    Cam Newton can ball.  He's going to be an even better QB once he gets more experience.  This was the kind of game where in year's past, the Packers would have lost.  Last year they learned not to panic and then learned how to close teams out.  They stuck with the gameplan, and simply executed and made lots of big plays when needed.  One guy I forgot to call out props to is Morgan Burnett.  They were high on him before last season and again this year and he's making plays in each game that are big and continued to do so today.  2-0 is a good start, gotta keep things rolling.




  • SoMnFan -> RE: The Packers (9/18/2011 5:15:14 PM)

    You suck! Don't come in here bragging! We're hurtin here, dammit!




    JK Craig.
    Good for you.
    You have a solid, proud franchise to back.(who's given you a lot of fun)
    Wish we knew how that felt right now. [:o] 




    Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/19/2011 10:12:52 AM)

    Screw the Packers and their franchise!!!  Someone should blow that stadium up!




    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (9/19/2011 4:15:54 PM)

    Collins out for the year. Crap.

    I hope this isn't career-ending for him.




    John Childress -> RE: The Packers (9/19/2011 4:51:52 PM)

    sorry to hear that Craig




    Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/20/2011 2:38:39 PM)

    I'm not!  Hopefully Rogers is next!




    John Childress -> RE: The Packers (9/20/2011 7:52:33 PM)

    That Ed is such a kidder!




    Lynn G. -> RE: The Packers (9/20/2011 8:49:14 PM)

    I don't wish for injury to a player. But I wouldn't be upset if he gets arrested for buying cheese from the black market.




    Thomas O. Eliason -> RE: The Packers (9/21/2011 12:31:07 AM)

    Or for buying blacks at a cheese market.




    Cheesehead Craig -> RE: The Packers (9/22/2011 11:27:21 AM)

    Never buy the black cheese.




    Tim Cady -> RE: The Packers (9/22/2011 8:15:43 PM)

    The Bears have really surprized me this year. Before the season I would have said easy victory for Pack. Now, I think the Bears win by 10 in Chitown. I also believe the Lions with kick the crap out of the Vikings in the Dome.




    Guest -> RE: The Packers (9/25/2011 3:48:47 PM)

    Can Rogers go down this week?  Someone roll up on his knee or something???




    Tim Cady -> RE: The Packers (9/25/2011 10:45:58 PM)

    Nice game Craig! Must be a dream scenario- 3-0, Bears 1-3, Vikings 0-3 and then the only worry you have is the 2-1 Lions who probably hand you your only loss on Thanksgiving. Bills are my living vicariously team this year, I believe we might climb to 500 by end of year, but know hope of playoffs.




    thebigo -> RE: The Packers (9/25/2011 11:18:53 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Tim Cady

    Nice game Craig! Must be a dream scenario- 3-0, Bears 1-3, Vikings 0-3 and then the only worry you have is the 2-1 Lions who probably hand you your only loss on Thanksgiving. Bills are my living vicariously team this year, I believe we might climb to 500 by end of year, but know hope of playoffs.


    Lions are 3-0.




    Jon Thomas -> RE: The Packers (9/25/2011 11:30:18 PM)

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: thebigo

    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Tim Cady

    Nice game Craig! Must be a dream scenario- 3-0, Bears 1-3, Vikings 0-3 and then the only worry you have is the 2-1 Lions who probably hand you your only loss on Thanksgiving. Bills are my living vicariously team this year, I believe we might climb to 500 by end of year, but know hope of playoffs.


    Lions are 3-0.


    Bears are 1-2






    Page: <<   < prev  96 97 [98] 99 100   next >   >>



    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode