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 26 27 [28] 29 30 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 10:33:46 PM

David Moufang

Posts: 1177
Joined: 7/29/2007
From: Columbia Crest
Status: offline

Packers offense should come out very aggressive and start piling on the points early. Keep the ball out of Tony Romo's hands. Our time of possession has been a key this year, and can be a great tool for the upcoming game. Our defense is going to have to really shine. Everyone claims Harris is such a great player, but I'm not convinced. Romo and Owens make a powerful combo. Like another person said, Harris will have to play the game of his life. If we can beat these guys, I think we can make the Super Bowl.

Post #: 676

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 11:13:36 PM

David Moufang

Posts: 1177
Joined: 7/29/2007
From: Columbia Crest
Status: offline

NFL will not punish Packers players for 'bounty rule' violation

Post #: 677

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 11:15:33 PM

Lynn G.

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

Of course not.

Post #: 678

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 11:46:10 PM

Tim Cady

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

[quote="Lynn G."][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.[/quote] I do too, Jeremy Green is the one of the only National guys, Ditka a little as well who have given the Vikings defense credit. One real positive for the offense, offensive line in particular- Tony Saragousa on the sideline pointed this out yesterday, that he could not tell if the Vikings were in Pass or run on offense, because the start of each play looks like a run regardless if it is.That makes a team tough to defend.

Post #: 679

RE:The Packers - 11/26/2007 11:48:24 PM

Cheesehead Craig

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

[quote="David Moufang"]NFL will not punish Packers players for 'bounty rule' violation[/quote] I love Kampan's quote " "It's pretty much all water under the dam." Um, I think it's a bridge Aaron. :lol: We may very well have our own version of Yogi Berra here.

Post #: 680

RE:The Packers - 11/27/2007 12:21:36 AM

John Childress

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

[quote="Lynn G."][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.[/quote] Yup, the Vikings caused those turnovers. These were not well thrown balls that bounced off the Giants WRs into Vikings DBs' hands. This defense is Jeckyll and Hyde for sure

Post #: 681

RE:The Packers - 11/27/2007 12:29:05 AM

John Childress

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

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="David Moufang"]NFL will not punish Packers players for 'bounty rule' violation[/quote] I love Kampan's quote " "It's pretty much all water under the dam." Um, I think it's a bridge Aaron. :lol: We may very well have our own version of Yogi Berra here.[/quote] Have you watched Emmitt Smith? A leopard doesn't change his stripes

Post #: 682

RE:The Packers - 11/27/2007 2:54:31 AM

#1 Bart Starr fan

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

[quote="John Childress"][quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="David Moufang"]NFL will not punish Packers players for 'bounty rule' violation[/quote] I love Kampan's quote " "It's pretty much all water under the dam." Um, I think it's a bridge Aaron. :lol: We may very well have our own version of Yogi Berra here.[/quote] Have you watched Emmitt Smith? A leopard doesn't change his stripes[/quote] Smith may be the worst of all the recent ex-players who now do commentary. The man is an idiot. Even the Bus is better...in fact, I kinda like him. Hell, Michael Irvin is better than Smith. Smith is a complete tool.

Post #: 683

RE:The Packers - 11/27/2007 3:30:07 AM

John Childress

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

These guys make Michael Irvin sound good! Irvin was ok except when he started pontificating - he of all people

Post #: 684

RE:The Packers - 11/27/2007 7:07:49 PM

Tim Cady

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

Emmitt Smith, just doesn't come across as having a clue on how to do this. The NFL network gave him a little tryout when he first retired and they didn't keep him long. I still don't like Steve Young either. I think he is a bright guy, but he hides it well. Irvin was least enjoyable commentator to me of anyone, ever! Keyshawn is a tool, but I enjoy him with Parcels. I think Robert Smith does a nice job. He supposedly got fired from NFL Network for supporting Moss on his once in a blue Moon article. Smith on crime, besides supporting Moss, was to admit to inhaling in college. Pretty ironic. Smith's disdain for Moss, was always considered a contribution to his decision to retire. Ironic. This is why I try to e-mail my disdain to theNFL. Regarding my offense to Ray Lewis commercials for the NFL Network. Fire a guy for admitting something, that virtually everyone has done, but continue to use an alleged Murderer as a poster boy. When is the NFL Network going to bring OJ in? Until his recent troubles, he was as not guilty as Ray Lewis. Rod Woodson, Terrel Davis and Marshall Faulk are all really good. I thought Lincoln Kennedy was awesome when the network first started. I can't believe I am going to say this, but I think Quadry Ismail does an alright job. Jeremy Green is pretty good as well and I am not saying this just because he gave the Vikings a little credit this week. I am really sick of Jaws and Kornholer. I think Mike Torico has improved as a playbyplay man, I really didn't like him doing MNF last year. I used to love Jaws, but him a Tony K. being buddies rubs me the wrong way, not saying I want Theisman back. I think the best MNF crew would be one that included Mike Myock. There was a Vikings preseason game this year, that had Myock, Michelle Tofoya and an unknown to me playbyplay guy. I think it was the Dallas preseason game and it was the most informative and enjoying broadcast of a football game that I have heard in years. If they are not ready for Michelle(a woman in the booth, whom I think is awesome) I would settle for replacing Kornhiser and Jaws with Myock and Coach Vermeil. Torico has improved enough that I don't think he is the reason that the the MNF coverage is unlistenable.

Post #: 685

RE:The Packers - 11/27/2007 9:08:38 PM

Cheesehead Craig

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

I miss Dan Fouts. That guy was so dead on with his analysis and comments. Too bad he got overshadowed with the Dennis Miller experiment. Who is he doing the announcing for now? Anyone know?

Post #: 686

RE:The Packers - 11/27/2007 11:07:05 PM

John Childress

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

I loved Fouts Miller was BRUTAL - worst ever I like Mark May and wish he would move up to the NFL Steve Young is not very articulate. He knows what he wants to say but he just can't get it out smoothly. ESPN needs to kill the whole Washington Post reject show of Korny and Wilpon. Those guys are terrible - Korn is the worst. Never put 3 in a booth. A smooth play by play person along with an analytical expert a la Hank Stram, Dan Fouts, etc. is all that is needed. Stop with the stories. The GB Dallas game will be painful to listen to! Enough about Favre, Romo, and Owens. There are actually other guys on the field who are playing and we want to learn about!!!

Post #: 687

RE:The Packers - 11/27/2007 11:24:45 PM

Cheesehead Craig

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

No kidding. I'd rather hear about Jennings, Jones, Crayton & Jacques Reeves (both 7th rounders), the OL. Show something else. We all know about the big names.

Post #: 688

RE:The Packers - 11/27/2007 11:43:20 PM

John Childress

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

I want to know how you guys created a running game and how can we stop it! oh Too late

Post #: 689

RE:The Packers - 11/28/2007 1:33:00 AM

Tim Cady

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

His name is Ryan Grant and the Giants could have used him on Sunday. Nice pick up by the Packers. I have him on two fantasy teams and he got one team to the playoffs last week and the other team, where I have yet to play him, always has a starter that he outperforms. Sorry for the Fantasy reference, I should be ashamed to be happy with Packers. I admit, that fantasy perspective, while watching football makes me feel dirty at times. Ryan Grant, really does remind me of Dorsey Levins, not just the number, but that contributes.

Post #: 690

RE:The Packers - 11/28/2007 6:28:51 AM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

Crucify me for it if you want to (and you might after the game) but I see Dallas winning this game by at least 2 TD's and exposing Green Bay for what they are, not a great team, but a "solid" team in a REALLY bad conference/league. We will see.

Post #: 691

RE:The Packers - 11/28/2007 4:19:51 PM

Cheesehead Craig

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

Post #: 692

RE:The Packers - 11/28/2007 8:06:34 PM

El Duderino

Posts: 6833
Joined: 7/27/2007
From: If you're not into the whole brevity thing ...
Status: offline

[quote="djskilbr"]Crucify me for it if you want to (and you might after the game) but I see Dallas winning this game by at least 2 TD's and exposing Green Bay for what they are, not a great team, but a "solid" team in a REALLY bad conference/league. We will see.[/quote] The numbers don't really bear that out, though. Someone posted a USA Today ranking that shows the NFC East as the best division, with the NFC North being #3. The AFC South (I believe) was #2. I don't remember the Packers strength of schedule, but I know ours was #3 overall. There likely isn't a huge difference, as they are identical except for the pack/vikes games and two non-common conference opponents (ours are San Francisco and Atlanta, GBs are Carolina and Saint Louis).

Post #: 693

RE:The Packers - 11/28/2007 8:34:30 PM

John Childress

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

quote:

DIVISION CENTRAL MEAN SIMPLE AVERAGE TEAMS 1 (NFC EAST) = 24.75 25.24 ( 1) 4 2 (afc south) = 22.83 23.11 ( 3) 4 3 (NFC NORTH) = 22.74 23.19 ( 2) 4 4 (afc east) = 19.10 20.98 ( 4) 4 5 (afc west) = 18.72 19.03 ( 5) 4 6 (afc north) = 18.51 18.45 ( 6) 4 7 (NFC SOUTH) = 15.76 16.24 ( 7) 4 8 (NFC WEST) = 13.58 13.76 ( 8) 4

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/nfl07.htm

quote:

1 New England Patriots = 40.82 11 0 2 Dallas Cowboys = 33.15 10 1 3 Indianapolis Colts = 30.47 9 2 4 Green Bay Packers = 29.22 10 1 5 San Diego Chargers = 25.09 6 5 6 Jacksonville Jaguars = 24.69 8 3 7 New York Giants = 24.64 7 4 8 Pittsburgh Steelers = 23.38 8 3 9 Philadelphia Eagles = 22.91 5 6 10 Tampa Bay Buccaneers = 22.05 7 4 11 Minnesota Vikings = 21.94 5 6 12 Detroit Lions = 21.76 6 5 13 Cleveland Browns = 20.56 7 4 14 Washington Redskins = 20.25 5 6 15 Chicago Bears = 19.85 5 6 16 Tennessee Titans = 19.83 6 5 17 Seattle Seahawks = 19.58 7 4 18 Denver Broncos = 18.98 5 6 19 Houston Texans = 17.46 5 6 20 Buffalo Bills = 17.39 5 6 21 Kansas City Chiefs = 17.22 4 7 22 Cincinnati Bengals = 16.67 4 7 23 Arizona Cardinals = 16.26 5 6 24 New Orleans Saints = 16.01 5 6 25 Oakland Raiders = 14.84 3 8 26 Carolina Panthers = 13.59 4 7 27 Atlanta Falcons = 13.32 3 8 28 New York Jets = 13.29 2 9 29 Baltimore Ravens = 13.20 4 7 30 Miami Dolphins = 12.40 0 11 31 San Francisco 49ers = 10.21 3 8 32 St. Louis Rams = 8.98 2 9

Click the link for explanations Some of the teams with good records haven't played anyone

Post #: 694

RE:The Packers - 11/28/2007 8:43:29 PM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

[quote="El Duderino"][quote="djskilbr"]Crucify me for it if you want to (and you might after the game) but I see Dallas winning this game by at least 2 TD's and exposing Green Bay for what they are, not a great team, but a "solid" team in a REALLY bad conference/league. We will see.[/quote] The numbers don't really bear that out, though. Someone posted a USA Today ranking that shows the NFC East as the best division, with the NFC North being #3. The AFC South (I believe) was #2. I don't remember the Packers strength of schedule, but I know ours was #3 overall. There likely isn't a huge difference, as they are identical except for the pack/vikes games and two non-common conference opponents (ours are San Francisco and Atlanta, GBs are Carolina and Saint Louis).[/quote] I don't care about numbers too much in this case. From what I've seen the level of play has been atrocious this year.

Post #: 695

RE:The Packers - 11/28/2007 8:44:17 PM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

[quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="djskilbr"]Crucify me for it if you want to (and you might after the game) but I see Dallas winning this game by at least 2 TD's and exposing Green Bay for what they are, not a great team, but a "solid" team in a REALLY bad conference/league. We will see.[/quote] So does that mean that if Dallas wins, they aren't that good either since the league is no good this year?[/quote] Dallas isn't a stellar team. They're a "good" team to me, but nothing more. And they're easily the class of the NFC in my mind. That's saying something. Just a really bad year, outside of the Pats of course. Just like college ball this year. Just my two cents. It's honestly not meant to be some slam on the Packers or something. I just think the level of play is really down this year.

Post #: 696

RE:The Packers - 11/28/2007 9:13:56 PM

John Childress

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

the myth of the AFC being so great has been exposed The 5-6 Eagles gave the Pats all they could handle Dallas and GB can easily beat every other AFC team than the Pats. And if the Pats play in bad weather GB might give them a run with this new RB.

Post #: 697

RE:The Packers - 11/28/2007 9:19:00 PM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

[quote="John Childress"]the myth of the AFC being so great has been exposed The 5-6 Eagles gave the Pats all they could handle Dallas and GB can easily beat every other AFC team than the Pats. And if the Pats play in bad weather GB might give them a run with this new RB.[/quote] The whole league's weak, not just the NFC. The Pats are 2 td's better than any other team. I don't base things on one bad game against the Uggles. They'll beat Dallas in the SuperBowl by 30.

Post #: 698

RE:The Packers - 11/28/2007 9:20:09 PM

Andy Lowe

Posts: 6655
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: Dublin, OH
Status: offline

[quote="djskilbr"][quote="Cheesehead Craig"][quote="djskilbr"]Crucify me for it if you want to (and you might after the game) but I see Dallas winning this game by at least 2 TD's and exposing Green Bay for what they are, not a great team, but a "solid" team in a REALLY bad conference/league. We will see.[/quote] So does that mean that if Dallas wins, they aren't that good either since the league is no good this year?[/quote] Dallas isn't a stellar team. They're a "good" team to me, but nothing more. And they're easily the class of the NFC in my mind. That's saying something. Just a really bad year, outside of the Pats of course. Just like college ball this year. Just my two cents. It's honestly not meant to be some slam on the Packers or something. I just think the level of play is really down this year.[/quote] In true sense of the word, there are no "great" teams in the NFL right now. With FA, I don't believe there will be either. Which goes back to my whole point of getting rid of this ridiculous salary cap system. I like the cap, but give teams credit for signing their own veterans. Get rid of this mediocre stuff.

Post #: 699

RE:The Packers - 11/28/2007 9:24:54 PM

djskillz

Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline

Agreed Andy. The NBA salary cap has its flaws but something like the Larry Bird exception might be the best for the NFL. Allow teams to keep guys so that you have a "team" but not exactly equal.

Post #: 700