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 25 26 [27] 28 29 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 5:56:25 PM

thebigo

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

[quote="Lane Meyer"]My point is that there is a book, though limited on TJack, where very little exists on Rodgers. That fact is a plus where Rodgers is concerned, IMHO. TJack would not start for a team other than Chilly's team. I don't think NFL teams will be beating down the Packer's door for Rodgers, but TJack is no more attractive other than that he's started a few games and lost. Rodger's "unknown" factor is a factor in his favor IMHO.[/quote] Actually T-Jack is 4-2 as a starter this year.

Post #: 651

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 5:59:53 PM

Guest

Honestly, I don't think you know what you have with Rodgers, and I don't think you will know until he plays in some real games. I'm a little surprised by how little mop-up time he has gotten over the years. WRT learning from another QB, that's overrated. That's the job of the coaching staff. Who did Manning learn from?

Post #: 652

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 6:12:36 PM

Lane Meyer

Posts: 91
Joined: 11/8/2007
From: Section 129
Status: offline

The main point I was trying to make is simply that his internship under Favre certainly won't hurt and I think NFL teams may find that internship a positive where Rodgers long term NFL future is concerned. I am not suggesting the Packers trade him, but I am suggesting that with the dearth of quality QB play, he has become an commodity with value. Mainly owing to the fact that he has played well, albeit in preseason, I think Rodgers gives the team some hope for his future. If the Packers see something, I believe they probably are not alone in that assessment. Compared to TJack, whose play has hardly given the Vike's much hope, (although again, the sample size is very small) the unknown factor plays to both Rodger's and the Packer's advantage. I'm not saying that I think TJack's future is bleak. I believe that for the opportunity he's been given however, the production has been rather underwhelming. Rodgers, on the other hand, has an even more limited track record but has shown an NFL QB skill set IMHO. It would seem as though the Packer front office agrees at this point in time.

Post #: 653

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 6:23:23 PM

Lane Meyer

Posts: 91
Joined: 11/8/2007
From: Section 129
Status: offline

[quote="Pete C"]Honestly, I don't think you know what you have with Rodgers, and I don't think you will know until he plays in some real games. I'm a little surprised by how little mop-up time he has gotten over the years. WRT learning from another QB, that's overrated. That's the job of the coaching staff. Who did Manning learn from?[/quote] Manning did not come into the league tearing it up either. How many rookie QB's come into the league and light it on fire? I'd bet most NFL coaches would disagree that some time spent learning while sitting is overrated. bigo; Regarding TJack's record as a starter, how much do you attribute to TJack and how much to having one of the most talented RBs to come down the line in quite a while? If I recall, AD set a few records in a couple of those wins and I'll make the claim his efforts had more to do with the wins than TJack's passing or game mgmt. I just don't believe TJack would be starting for anyone other than the Vike's at this point and I think it shows Childress overvalued TJack's ability vs. his experience.

Post #: 654

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 6:30:48 PM

Guest

[quote="Lane Meyer"] I am not suggesting the Packers trade him, but I am suggesting that with the dearth of quality QB play, he has become an commodity with value. [/quote] ***************************************** This myth has been debunked. Right now the NFL is on pace just .2 points away from an all-time record high for passer rating.

Post #: 655

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 6:32:52 PM

Guest

Post #: 656

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 6:41:30 PM

Lane Meyer

Posts: 91
Joined: 11/8/2007
From: Section 129
Status: offline

[quote="Pete C"][quote="Lane Meyer"] I am not suggesting the Packers trade him, but I am suggesting that with the dearth of quality QB play, he has become an commodity with value. [/quote] ***************************************** This myth has been debunked. Right now the NFL is on pace just .2 points away from an all-time record high for passer rating.[/quote] So the all time passer rating is .2 pts away from the record. Do you really believe the level of QB play is at an all time high? If so, consider the myth debunked.

Post #: 657

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 6:44:10 PM

Lane Meyer

Posts: 91
Joined: 11/8/2007
From: Section 129
Status: offline

[quote="Pete C"][quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="Pete C"]Honestly, I don't think you know what you have with Rodgers, and I don't think you will know until he plays in some real games. I'm a little surprised by how little mop-up time he has gotten over the years. WRT learning from another QB, that's overrated. That's the job of the coaching staff. Who did Manning learn from?[/quote] Manning did not come into the league tearing it up either. How many rookie QB's come into the league and light it on fire? I'd bet most NFL coaches would disagree that some time spent learning while sitting is overrated. [/quote] ****************************************************** Manning threw 26 TD's as a rookie. Also, I didn't say sitting wasn't important. I said who you are sitting behind is overrated. I think it's much more important to have a good QB coach.[/quote] He also threw 28 picks and had a passer rating of 71.2 on a team which finished 3-13. Good year in your estimation?

Post #: 658

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 6:51:08 PM

Guest

[quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="Pete C"][quote="Lane Meyer"] I am not suggesting the Packers trade him, but I am suggesting that with the dearth of quality QB play, he has become an commodity with value. [/quote] ***************************************** This myth has been debunked. Right now the NFL is on pace just .2 points away from an all-time record high for passer rating.[/quote] So the all time passer rating is .2 pts away from the record. Do you really believe the level of QB play is at an all time high? If so, consider the myth debunked.[/quote] ********************************************************** I'm not trying to be argumentative, and it really doesn't matter what I believe. The FACT is, according to passer rating, (and currently that's how we measure QB performance) the best season ever was 2004, where the entire league combined for an average passer rating of 82.8. Currently the entire league is at 82.58.

Post #: 659

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 7:01:39 PM

Lane Meyer

Posts: 91
Joined: 11/8/2007
From: Section 129
Status: offline

[quote="Pete C"][quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="Pete C"][quote="Lane Meyer"] I am not suggesting the Packers trade him, but I am suggesting that with the dearth of quality QB play, he has become an commodity with value. [/quote] ***************************************** This myth has been debunked. Right now the NFL is on pace just .2 points away from an all-time record high for passer rating.[/quote] So the all time passer rating is .2 pts away from the record. Do you really believe the level of QB play is at an all time high? If so, consider the myth debunked.[/quote] ********************************************************** I'm not trying to be argumentative, and it really doesn't matter what I believe. The FACT is, according to passer rating, (and currently that's how we measure QB performance) the best season ever was 2004, where the entire league combined for an average passer rating of 82.8. Currently the entire league is at 82.58.[/quote] I haven't taken any of this as argumentative. The facts regarding passer rating are indisputable, you've obviously done your homework. Maybe I don't value the Passer Rating as highly as some, but I don't think numbers are all one needs to judge QB play. I do agree that based on that measurement, QB play is the best it's ever been. I just don't believe the actual play on the field bears that out. Just my opinion Pete.

Post #: 660

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 7:11:53 PM

John Childress

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

Another way to look at it is 1. The average QB ratings of the 16 top QBs in 2004 was 96.0 and in 2007 it is 95.7 2. The midpoint, the QB rating of the 16th rated QB, was 83.5 in 2004 and is 87.3 this year. 3. In 2004, there were 18 QBs with a rating higher than 80. In 2007 there are 19. There were 11 QBs then with a rating over 90 versus only 7 now. So there were more high level QBs then but more above average QBs now.

Post #: 661

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 7:15:59 PM

Lane Meyer

Posts: 91
Joined: 11/8/2007
From: Section 129
Status: offline

[quote="John Childress"]Another way to look at it is 1. The average QB ratings of the 16 top QBs in 2004 was 96.0 and in 2007 it is 95.7 2. The midpoint, the QB rating of the 16th rated QB, was 83.5 in 2004 and is 87.3 this year. 3. In 2004, there were 18 QBs with a rating higher than 80. In 2007 there are 19. There were 11 QBs then with a rating over 90 versus only 7 now. So there were more high level QBs then but more above average QBs now.[/quote] Thanks John. Maybe that is why I see it the way I do. Not disputing facts, just my own view of QB play.

Post #: 662

RE:The Packers - 11/24/2007 8:29:24 PM

thebigo

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

[quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="Pete C"]Honestly, I don't think you know what you have with Rodgers, and I don't think you will know until he plays in some real games. I'm a little surprised by how little mop-up time he has gotten over the years. WRT learning from another QB, that's overrated. That's the job of the coaching staff. Who did Manning learn from?[/quote] Manning did not come into the league tearing it up either. How many rookie QB's come into the league and light it on fire? I'd bet most NFL coaches would disagree that some time spent learning while sitting is overrated. bigo; Regarding TJack's record as a starter, how much do you attribute to TJack and how much to having one of the most talented RBs to come down the line in quite a while? If I recall, AD set a few records in a couple of those wins and I'll make the claim his efforts had more to do with the wins than TJack's passing or game mgmt. I just don't believe TJack would be starting for anyone other than the Vike's at this point and I think it shows Childress overvalued TJack's ability vs. his experience.[/quote] T-Jacks contribution has nothing to do with it. You said T-Jack has got to start games and lost. I mentioned that he has a record of 4-2 as a starter in 2007.

Post #: 663

RE:The Packers - 11/25/2007 8:59:13 PM

Cheesehead Craig

Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline

The thing that has stood out to me the most about Rodgers is that he is markedly improved from when he first was drafted. He has gotten better each year. His mechanics, footwork and decision making are very good now. Much of that Tedford system drilling has been worked out of him and this most recent preseason showed it. The dropoff from Favre to him is not as dramatic as it once was. Still a big gap? Yes, but that can be said of Favre and many of the QBs around the league.

Post #: 664

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 3:07:36 PM

Duane Sampson

Posts: 14200
Status: offline

Favre Winless at Texas Stadium Mon Nov 26, 2007 The Dallas Morning News reports with an 0-8 record at Dallas, Packers QB Brett Favre will not be asking for a piece of Texas Stadium when the Cowboys leave for their new stadium in Arlington in 2009. Texas Stadium is one of nine current stadiums that Favre, who has 12 touchdown passes and eight interceptions in Irving, has played in but never won. "I was hoping that it would be gone before I got back there," said Favre, who will be making his first trip to Irving since 1999. "Most of the times we lost down there, it was in the playoffs. Good thing was they went on the win the Super Bowl in all those. We hope that's different this year. I know they're playing as well as they were back then. "I don't know if I'll be around to see the next stadium. I'd like to get one in this stadium."

Post #: 665

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 4:13:06 PM

Trekgeekscott

Posts: 39278
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"]The thing that has stood out to me the most about Rodgers is that he is markedly improved from when he first was drafted. He has gotten better each year. His mechanics, footwork and decision making are very good now. Much of that Tedford system drilling has been worked out of him and this most recent preseason showed it. The dropoff from Favre to him is not as dramatic as it once was. Still a big gap? Yes, but that can be said of Favre and many of the QBs around the league.[/quote] Well Unlike Tavaris Jackson, he has had a chance to sit. Watch, learn, study...when his time comes, he may be a good QB ready to go. If Brett Favre ever retires that is...

Post #: 666

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 5:02:21 PM

Cheesehead Craig

Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline

[quote="Trekgeekscott"][quote="Cheesehead Craig"]The thing that has stood out to me the most about Rodgers is that he is markedly improved from when he first was drafted. He has gotten better each year. His mechanics, footwork and decision making are very good now. Much of that Tedford system drilling has been worked out of him and this most recent preseason showed it. The dropoff from Favre to him is not as dramatic as it once was. Still a big gap? Yes, but that can be said of Favre and many of the QBs around the league.[/quote] Well Unlike Tavaris Jackson, he has had a chance to sit. Watch, learn, study...when his time comes, he may be a good QB ready to go. If Brett Favre ever retires that is...[/quote] That's what Rodgers has going for him, he's not had the pressure to be the 'savior' of a franchise after being drafted in the first round. I agree with many around here that QBs should sit their first year or two before being anointed as the starter. It only helps.

Post #: 667

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 5:13:15 PM

John Childress

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

Do or die time for the Packers now I can't see Dallas losing more than 1 more game this year so the winner has a lock on HFA I don't see either team winning the NFC CG on the road.

Post #: 668

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 6:05:30 PM

Cheesehead Craig

Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline

The biggest key to stopping Dallas is limiting the damage that TO and Witten do. The rest of the WRs are not that impressive. Witten is going to be a problem as we have had issues with good TEs all season. I think this game is going to be fairly high scoring with the final being around 34-30 or so. I don't think it will be a blow-out, but with plenty of scoring.

Post #: 669

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 8:09:29 PM

#1 Bart Starr fan

Posts: 44
Joined: 11/14/2007
Status: offline

Keys to beating Dallas: on defense Kampman and KGB must pressure Romo often and early and get him off his rhythm Harris needs to play the game of his life and blanket T.O. everywhere Hawk, Poppinga and Barnett HAVE to both contain the Dallas RBs and also drop back in coverage versus Witten on offense Favre has to use all his receivers (which he does any way) and exercise caution when throwing shorter passes. But he shouldn't be afraid of going deep, especially to Jennings and Jones. Use Donald Lee a LOT to keep the Dallas LBs honest and limit the pass rush Speaking of pass rush, the pass blocking has to be almost perfect Use short passes to set up the run and then give the rock to Grant a lot, especially off tackle Use the 4 or 5 WR set but only if the protection is proving up to it I think Dallas is beatable if Romo gets rattled and you can frustrate T.O. I don't worry as much about Crayton. Witten scares me. If we handled Tomlinson, I can't get worked up over Barber (and esp. Jones) who while they are good, they are not elite backs, IMO. I think this game can turn into a shoot-out more than it will be a defensive struggle. The Packers have shown they can put up the points so I say "Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!" :D

Post #: 670

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 8:29:03 PM

Lane Meyer

Posts: 91
Joined: 11/8/2007
From: Section 129
Status: offline

[quote="thebigo"][quote="Lane Meyer"][quote="Pete C"]Honestly, I don't think you know what you have with Rodgers, and I don't think you will know until he plays in some real games. I'm a little surprised by how little mop-up time he has gotten over the years. WRT learning from another QB, that's overrated. That's the job of the coaching staff. Who did Manning learn from?[/quote] Manning did not come into the league tearing it up either. How many rookie QB's come into the league and light it on fire? I'd bet most NFL coaches would disagree that some time spent learning while sitting is overrated. bigo; Regarding TJack's record as a starter, how much do you attribute to TJack and how much to having one of the most talented RBs to come down the line in quite a while? If I recall, AD set a few records in a couple of those wins and I'll make the claim his efforts had more to do with the wins than TJack's passing or game mgmt. I just don't believe TJack would be starting for anyone other than the Vike's at this point and I think it shows Childress overvalued TJack's ability vs. his experience.[/quote] T-Jacks contribution has nothing to do with it. You said T-Jack has got to start games and lost. I mentioned that he has a record of 4-2 as a starter in 2007.[/quote] I stand corrected regarding TJack's record as a starter. You make mention that his contribution has "nothing to do with it" and regarding the wins and losses, that is the point I was driving at. He has been the QB of record in 5 wins (correction?) and is deserving of said recognition. I don't think the guy's performance is the primary reason the Vikings have won those games though. They scored 3 TDs on "D" yesterday and while TJack started, the biggest factor was the D and the inexplicable performance of Manning. 2 of the other wins came on days when AD ran wild. TJack's carrying a 62.8 passer rating which leaves him behind guys such as Cleo Lemon. He's played well lately, no doubt. As A Packer fan I hope they continue to start him as long as possible however. It's just my opinion bigo. I originally posted regarding Rodger's value and viability and have since gotten into debating TJack's relative merits. Sorry for the detour.

Post #: 671

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 9:08:34 PM

Tim Cady

Posts: 10549
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Wonderful World
Status: offline

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"]The biggest key to stopping Dallas is limiting the damage that TO and Witten do. The rest of the WRs are not that impressive. Witten is going to be a problem as we have had issues with good TEs all season. I think this game is going to be fairly high scoring with the final being around 34-30 or so. I don't think it will be a blow-out, but with plenty of scoring.[/quote] Hey Craig, I am on record as saying that I think the Packers are better than Dallas. I also am on record as saying I think that even with game being in Dallas the Packers could crush them. One caveat, this was before the injuries to KGB and Woodson. Will they both play? If not, How do the Packers compensate?

Post #: 672

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 9:09:49 PM

John Childress

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

I think Dallas wins this game by 4-10 points.

Post #: 673

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 10:01:05 PM

Cheesehead Craig

Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline

[quote="Tim Cady"][quote="Cheesehead Craig"]The biggest key to stopping Dallas is limiting the damage that TO and Witten do. The rest of the WRs are not that impressive. Witten is going to be a problem as we have had issues with good TEs all season. I think this game is going to be fairly high scoring with the final being around 34-30 or so. I don't think it will be a blow-out, but with plenty of scoring.[/quote] Hey Craig, I am on record as saying that I think the Packers are better than Dallas. I also am on record as saying I think that even with game being in Dallas the Packers could crush them. One caveat, this was before the injuries to KGB and Woodson. Will they both play? If not, How do the Packers compensate?[/quote] My understanding is both will play. Woodson won't be returning punts, but Tramon Williams should be returning them anyway, the kid has a knack for it. If Woodson doesn't play, then it gets real interesting. Jarrett Bush then becomes the other starter and he is not all that good. KGB has both a sprained ankle and knee, and if he cannot go, Cullen Jenkins is simply going to have to play more downs at DE. Likely Montgomery would get some work there also. I think the Packers have a good shot at winning this, but they are going to have to score a bunch to get the win as the defense is too banged up right now to slow the Cowboys much.

Post #: 674

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 10:06:34 PM

Lynn G.

Posts: 33035
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: online

[quote="Lane Meyer"] ... the biggest factor was the D and the inexplicable performance of Manning. [/quote] (My emphasis with the bolding). What's inexplicable? You said it yourself - the biggest factor was the D. Manning's poor performance was a direct result of what the Vikings' defense was doing. Similar to what they did in the San Diego game, they very adroitly disguised coverages and showed formations that confused Manning. They showed blitz but then backed into coverage. Other times, with the same formation - they DID blitz. Manning didn't know what to expect when he took the snap and it showed in the incompletions and interceptions. I just wonder where that defense was when we played at Lambeau.

Post #: 675