RE: The Packers

Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports

Forums Register Login My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums

Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ Ticket List Log Out

RE: The Packers

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk >> RE: The Packers

Page: << < prev 110 111 [112] 113 114 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The Packers - 9/29/2012 10:09:15 AM

thebigo

Posts: 28301
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Todd M

quote:

the number of clues that this is a total fabrication of photoshop construction is pretty obvious

To everyone I would imagine...

You would think.

Post #: 2776

RE: The Packers - 9/29/2012 10:27:57 AM

David Levine

Posts: 77901
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Danimal

yes, it is funny, but it's not "real".. it was manufactured to fit the circumstances..

Welcome to the internet.

Post #: 2777

RE: The Packers - 9/29/2012 4:13:56 PM

marty

Posts: 13047
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

Some of you may have missed this, before the season began:

The NFL has announced that after 15 years, favorable officating for the Packers and Patriots is now done. Two new teams will now be selected, but you are not going to know who they are.

The NFL chooses 2 teams (1 from each Conference) to recieve favorable officiating for 15 years. They do not announce who the teams are (were) until the 15 year term is done. The 2 teams recieve favorable officiating for most games during the 15 years, but in an effort to hide their identity, the NFL has 2 regular games a year where the officiating is AGAINST these 2 teams, 14 games a year where the officiating is FOR them. The officiating will be in their favor, until they've won a SB.

It is the NFLs' desire that each of these 2 teams wins at least 1 SB or more, during the 15 years of favorable officiating. If they've won at least 1 SB, the team might find officials AGAINST them in the playoffs to better hide their identity.

Stay tuned to see who will be the next 2 chosen teams. Would you like to see the Vikes be one of the chosen teams so there is a pretty good chance they win a SB in the next 15 years (maybe even MULTIPLE SBs), or would you rather they go the difficult road of the Giants last year, who were one of the 1st teams to win a SB with the officials mostly AGAINST them ?

< Message edited by marty -- 9/29/2012 4:16:39 PM >

Post #: 2778

RE: The Packers - 9/30/2012 9:22:50 PM

marty

Posts: 13047
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

I'm kind of getting a kick out of the fact that the Packers have been unhappy with a couple of the calls today. I think they imagined that when the regular refs came back they'd be given every gift again.

Lynn, I was going to say you must not have read my post here #2778 from yesterday.

As I saw a few calls go against the Pack today, I was starting to wonder if maybe what I wrote might well be true. Then the Packers got the holding call after the Saints kicked a go ahead FG, one which could have been a no call, to cast some doubt into the whole thing.

Post #: 2779

RE: The Packers - 9/30/2012 10:03:10 PM

SoMnFan

Posts: 94902
Status: offline

They NEVER call that holding on a scoring play like that.
NEVER
Green Bay EXPECTS calls like that. Must be nice.

_____________________________

Work like a Captain.
Play like a Pirate.

Post #: 2780

RE: The Packers - 10/1/2012 9:21:51 AM

marty

Posts: 13047
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

So maybe Title Town should be renamed Entitlement Town ?

Post #: 2781

RE: The Packers - 10/1/2012 9:23:35 AM

Lynn G.

Posts: 33034
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

Excellent Marty. I might have to start using that (quietly).

Post #: 2782

RE: The Packers - 10/1/2012 10:30:53 AM

Todd M

Posts: 40598
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline

Not bad, Marty. Not bad at all.

Post #: 2783

RE: The Packers - 10/1/2012 11:17:46 AM

Lynn G.

Posts: 33034
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

Marty you have to get that out on Facebook and Twitter and comment in national articles, etc. so that your term mushrooms into the vernacular.

Post #: 2784

RE: The Packers - 10/1/2012 12:00:27 PM

Lynn G.

Posts: 33034
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

Here is a devious plan. Each of us that have accounts out there (Facebook, Twitter, Google, Yahoo, whatever ...) should let that nickname drop. I just put my money where my mouth is. I created an account on SI.com and left a comment on a sports article throwing out the new nickname "Entitlement Town" in my comment.

Let's see how long it takes for this thing to "go viral."

Post #: 2785

RE: The Packers - 10/1/2012 1:56:48 PM

marty

Posts: 13047
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

Sounds life fun Lynn ! I'm on it !

Post #: 2786

RE: The Packers - 10/1/2012 2:33:24 PM

Lynn G.

Posts: 33034
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

I've already posted it in four different places. I'm thinking that if we drop it on some Bears' forums it'll take off like gangbusters, but I'm not ready to register on any of those forums.

Genius Marty.

Post #: 2787

RE: The Packers - 10/8/2012 2:35:45 PM

marty

Posts: 13047
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

Nothing unites a team more than getting ready to upset a really good team. I think the Packers will upset the Texans, and that will start to turn around their season.

However, I do think tonights' game has a bearing on that. IF the Jets somehow upset Texans, then I think the Packers have NO chance to upset an angry Texans' team at home. I think the Jets COULD keep it close because of the Tebow factor, and if the refs (the professional 'swayers') favor them.

------------------------------------------------

Last Wednesday, I heard a Packer fan saying he 'can't wait until the Packers play the Vikings'. The last time I heard that, was Favre's 1st year in Minnesota, and the Vikes SWEPT the Packers that year. So hopefully, that is a good omen.

I know the Packers are struggling, a lot of things going wrong for them, but I still think the Vikes are the THIRD best team in the division. The Vikes don't have a #1 WR, while the Packers and Bears DO. Should the Vikes get Bowe, or somebody comparable, they might be the best team in the division next year.

The Vikes are like the Bears from last year, or the year before. The Bears BEFORE they got Brandon Marshall (and Alshon Jeffrey). The Bears right now on defense are BETTER at getting turnovers, and getting picks that go for TDs on defense.

The Packers are struggling, but like Republicons, you should NEVER underestimate them. LT is struggling, they miss Jennings to open up the deep game, lots of drops, and lots of problems on defense. A Packer fan pointed out to me that Capers' defense, usually have their best year the 2nd year he is with every team he has been with, and then they taper off as teams figure them out. I don't if that is true or NOT ?

Post #: 2788

RE: The Packers - 10/14/2012 9:50:17 PM

marty

Posts: 13047
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

I thought the Packers would be the Texans tonight, but the Pack may also be getting some crucial help from the refs.

The game is muddied up because of a lot of penalties being called. The Packers benefitted from some good non calls of holding on their OL, some pushoffs from their WRs, and some other stuff with the snap of the ball. After getting away with a lot of holding, the Packer OL was called for holding after a Packer TD, but they gave the TD back to the Pack on a personal foul call where you easily could have just as well called the Packer that swung first, if a ref had noticed that first. That call changed it from a 2 scored lead to a 3 scored lead for the Pack.

I suspect there was more money bet on the Texans, especially with several Packers out and the Titans looking tough at home this year. The Packers have looked better, but the refs have also helped take the Texans out of their game.

Post #: 2789

RE: The Packers - 10/14/2012 9:58:40 PM

marty

Posts: 13047
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

As I said before, the game might have been a 'sway' in favor of the Pack, but you can't really tell because the Packers kept scoring. It's only if the Texans had gave them more of a game, and THEN if the officials continued favoring the Pack as the game got close, then you could tell the 'sway' was on.

The Packers had the refs if they needed them. I think the Packers would have won without ref favoritism, but we'll never know.

I think Matt Schaub is likely to falter in a big game, just like Matt Ryan, or Matt Romney

I don't think any of those Matts will win the SB this year.

< Message edited by marty -- 10/14/2012 10:47:11 PM >

Post #: 2790

RE: The Packers - 10/14/2012 10:44:58 PM

John Childress

Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

I find it insulting that the Packers were underdogs

The Texans are frauds

Exposed

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 2791

RE: The Packers - 10/14/2012 11:23:40 PM

Lynn G.

Posts: 33034
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

What? The Packers haven't exactly been playing well at all this year. Why is it insulting to call them underdogs?

Post #: 2792

RE: The Packers - 10/14/2012 11:59:16 PM

Jon Thomas

Posts: 687
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

What? The Packers haven't exactly been playing well at all this year. Why is it insulting to call them underdogs?

Shhhhhhh...

Post #: 2793

RE: The Packers - 10/15/2012 8:59:49 AM

John Childress

Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

The Packers are a far better team.

The Texans are frauds that feast on the weakest division in football.

As much as you may hate them, the Packers are an elite team with legit Super Bowl aspirations

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 2794

RE: The Packers - 10/15/2012 9:12:00 AM

Lynn G.

Posts: 33034
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

Doesn't change my point. They played horribly in the Seattle game, allowed Indianapolis to comeback after being up by 18 (or was it 21) points, and only had two wins coming into this game. They were playing AT Houston, which at the time was undefeated.

It was not a bit of an insult to call them the underdogs.

Post #: 2795

RE: The Packers - 10/15/2012 3:10:05 PM

John Childress

Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

I believe that you are right

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 2796

RE: The Packers - 10/15/2012 8:44:22 PM

Lynn G.

Posts: 33034
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

Thanks! That made me smile.

Post #: 2797

RE: The Packers - 12/3/2012 7:29:49 AM

marty

Posts: 13047
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

As the announcers were talking about Peterson's longevity, I think they are right in that he's not going to last forever, but he is probably going to last longer than most based on his determination. I think he could lose ANOTHER gear, and STILL be an effective back hammering out 10 yard runs he would have broken for 50.

Watching Aaron Rodgers play, I'm not so sure that HE will have longevity, especially with poor OL play. His style is NOT a lot of short stuff like Favre and Brady, he really prefers to throw passes 15 to 50 yards deep. He makes A LOT of fantastic throws in that range, and would have quite the numbers if it weren't for all the drops (he STILL has some good numbers).

But he takes so many hits, I'm not sure how many more years his body will take the pounding. Especially if they don't win another SB. IF he loses Jennings and Driver this offseason, I think that will hurt a bit next year, especially if Nelson and or Cobb start having injuries. The Vikings and Bears are on the way UP, and are going to keep the heat on and make it tough for the Packers to win the division the next few years.

I don't think the Packers will get far this year, even after Matthews and Woodson come back, they aren't going to have the chemistry. I think they likely lose to SF or NY Giants, and maybe Atlanta as well.

Post #: 2798

RE: The Packers - 12/3/2012 9:54:33 PM

marty

Posts: 13047
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

The Packers were about ready for a knockout blow, and Ponder COULD have delivered it in the 3rd quarter after AP's long run. Instead, Ponder showed that he is too slow for the game with an awful INT in the endzone on 1st down.

The Packers had just been humiliated on national TV, losing by 4 TDs to the Giants. Coughlin showed a blueprint on how to beat, and beat up Aaron Rodgers (minus Greg Jennings).

Instead of coming back with fire, the Pack came back like a team that was on its' last leg (with 2 good defensive players out, Woodson and Matthews), and the Vikes could have delievered it with that ONE play. The Vikes took another punch, knocking Jordy Nelson out of the game. I talked to Packer fans that thought if the Vikes got a TD after the AP run, the game was OVER. The Vikes defense was playing well, and with that TD, could have taken over the game, and the Pack would have just gotten more and more AD.

Post #: 2799

RE: The Packers - 12/4/2012 12:20:00 PM

SoMnFan

Posts: 94902
Status: offline

I realize PrettyBoy Matthews' FatHead commercial is intentionally narcissistic, but anyone else get the creepy feeling HE doesn't get it?