RE: 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: RE:The Packers

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 57 58 [59] 60 61 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/13/2008 8:39:16 PM

Jeff Jesser

Posts: 19462
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: Southern Cal
Status: offline

Yeah, who cares (all though you may be completely right). If that's their pathetic attempt to get a leg up, this is how I feel for them

Post #: 1451

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/8/2008 9:35:09 PM

David Moufang

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

EDIT: No trolling!

< Message edited by Toby Stumbo -- 9/8/2008 9:41:47 PM >

Post #: 1452

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/8/2008 9:39:45 PM

David Moufang

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

Well, it was a great game at the end, but the Packers have a LOT to work on. First, why couldn't our offense move the ball inch-by-inch when it counted? Pretty much all we did in the second half was go three-and-out. The Vikings completely controlled the game in the 3rd and 4th quarters. Unacceptable.

Second, why couldn't our defense get to Jackson? He was a slippery little devil back there. That needs work.

Post #: 1453

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/8/2008 9:51:17 PM

David Moufang

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

Oh yeah. Penalties. Pack was 12/118yds. WTF!

Post #: 1454

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/10/2008 10:48:06 AM

Ron W

Posts: 548
Joined: 7/28/2007
From: Southern Minnesota
Status: offline

In the Star Trib following the second Vikings - Packers game there was a poll on why the Vikings lost and one of the options was that "Aaron Rogers is no Brett Favre."

I have to disagree. In a game where Rogers was under as much pressure as any quarterback in recent memory he did not throw a single interception. We can't say what Favre would have done but I am inclined to believe that under the same circumstances the Packers would have had the "Bad Favre" who would have thrown multiple interceptions.

With the dominating play of the Vikings defense Rogers did a good chance of putting the Packers in the position to win. Unfortunately the Packers still have the best quarterback in the division with Aaron Rogers.

Post #: 1455

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/10/2008 11:20:56 AM

John Childress

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

I agree with that. The only big downside to Rodgers is that it doesn't look like he can take a pounding - but how many QBs can?

Gus threw 3 INTs with less pressure on him. Grossman is the new Favre without the ring. Detroit is a disaster.

You could make a case that Rodgers is the only starting quality QB in the division.

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 1456

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/10/2008 11:36:30 AM

djskillz

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

Yep. Does anyone think that Favre could have taken that pounding at his advanced age either?

I don't.

And Favre is less mobile than Rodgers at this point too, so they hits would have been even more frequent.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

Post #: 1457

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/10/2008 11:54:04 AM

John Childress

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

Favre would have been hit less because he would have simply thrown the ball up grabs and laughed.

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 1458

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/10/2008 12:16:48 PM

djskillz

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

Favre would have been hit less because he would have simply thrown the ball up grabs and laughed.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

Post #: 1459

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/10/2008 12:53:52 PM

Toby Stumbo

Posts: 18455
Joined: 12/11/2006
From: Central Minnesota
Status: offline

I'm surprised Green Bay didn't run more quick passing plays.

_____________________________

GO VIKES!

Post #: 1460

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/10/2008 1:19:18 PM

David Levine

Posts: 77939
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Toby Stumbo

I'm surprised Green Bay didn't run more quick passing plays.

Me too. It was the one thing they had that worked.

Post #: 1461

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/10/2008 1:20:24 PM

Jake Carlson

Posts: 1348
Joined: 8/21/2007
From: Northern CA
Status: offline

Speaking of Favre, Jimmy Johnson made an interesting point that the refs would not have called that penalty on Favre in the end zone resulting in a safety. It would have been an incompletion for Favre. I would agree with that.

Post #: 1462

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/10/2008 1:45:47 PM

Ron W

Posts: 548
Joined: 7/28/2007
From: Southern Minnesota
Status: offline

Rogers did not exactly flourish under the extreme pressue of the Vikings D but he didn't make any big mistakes other than possibly not getting rid of the ball fast enough in the end zone for the safeties.

I thought Rogers did a very good job of stepping up his game at the times when he had the opportunity. A case in point was after the first interception he led the Packers to a touchdown. The Vikings do that in the Colts game and they win the game. He put the Packers in position for field goals taking advantage of another interception and the Vikings turning it over on downs in great field position. He then led the Packers into position at the end of the game for a chance at the winning field goal. That's good quarterback play. In a game which the Vikings defense dominated Rogers did not make any major mistakes and put the Packers into a position where they were a missed field goal from winning.

Post #: 1463

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/10/2008 2:04:35 PM

Lynn G.

Posts: 33037
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jake Carlson

Speaking of Favre, Jimmy Johnson made an interesting point that the refs would not have called that penalty on Favre in the end zone resulting in a safety. It would have been an incompletion for Favre. I would agree with that.

Packer fans on another board were making that point too. It was interesting to read because they used to vehemently deny that Favre got favorable calls - but now they're basically admitting that it was true.

When Favre was picked up by the Jets, one of the first things I thought of was that now Jets fans were going to see how it feels to get "roughing the passer" calls.

_____________________________

Put our country back in the hands of people who actually want to do things to help everyday citizens. Elect Democrats.

Post #: 1464

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/10/2008 9:53:34 PM

Guest

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jake Carlson

Speaking of Favre, Jimmy Johnson made an interesting point that the refs would not have called that penalty on Favre in the end zone resulting in a safety. It would have been an incompletion for Favre. I would agree with that.

Packer fans on another board were making that point too. It was interesting to read because they used to vehemently deny that Favre got favorable calls - but now they're basically admitting that it was true.

When Favre was picked up by the Jets, one of the first things I thought of was that now Jets fans were going to see how it feels to get "roughing the passer" calls.

********************************
I'm not one to complain about officiating (except for the rape at Lambeau) but when guys like Johnson say that, it really kinda' makes me sick that professional officials give that type of preferential treatment to certain players. Hell, it's not the NBA.

Post #: 1465

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/11/2008 7:45:33 AM

Trekgeekscott

Posts: 39282
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Yep. Does anyone think that Favre could have taken that pounding at his advanced age either?

I don't.

And Favre is less mobile than Rodgers at this point too, so they hits would have been even more frequent.

I would say that Favre, regardless of his age CAN take the pounding. He hasn't played all those consecutive games because he can't. No, he would have ducked his head into the defenders arm and drawn a roughing penalty on the D. He would have thrown the ball up more often, he would have taken hit after hit...but barring his arm falling off or legs snapped in two. Favre would have taken the pounding and kept going. It just would have made him more strongly consider retiring.

_____________________________

“There is no hate like Christian love.”

Post #: 1466

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/11/2008 8:00:59 AM

Trekgeekscott

Posts: 39282
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron W

Rogers did not exactly flourish under the extreme pressue of the Vikings D but he didn't make any big mistakes other than possibly not getting rid of the ball fast enough in the end zone for the safeties.

No, but he made a lot of little mistakes...and the safeties cost the Packers the game (the margin of victory was exactly 1 point). So I would call that a pretty big mistake.

quote:

I thought Rogers did a very good job of stepping up his game at the times when he had the opportunity. A case in point was after the first interception he led the Packers to a touchdown.

That was a good drive...ON A SHORT FIELD. That isn't all that impressive, especially since IIRC, Grant did most of the work.

quote:

The Vikings do that in the Colts game and they win the game. He put the Packers in position for field goals taking advantage of another interception

Again on a short field where they were already IN field goal range.

quote:

and the Vikings turning it over on downs in great field position.

That whole drive went about 6 yards total...tell me how Rodgers did a great job on that drive again?

quote:

He then led the Packers into position at the end of the game for a chance at the winning field goal.

He started at the 41 or so and had a lucky tip/catch on the play...

quote:

That's good quarterback play.

Not really.

quote:

In a game which the Vikings defense dominated Rogers did not make any major mistakes and put the Packers into a position where they were a missed field goal from winning.

Rodgers did not play a good game. the Packers offense didn't get past 100 total yards of offense until well into the second half of the game. The only reason the game was close was because of TWO TDs that had nothing to do with the offense. The only times Rodgers could muster points was on a short field. And he gave up two safeties. Under pressure he was missing wide open recievers. The only reason that anyone could consider it a good game...was that he didn't throw any pics. That's it.

< Message edited by Trekgeekscott -- 11/11/2008 8:02:58 AM >

_____________________________

“There is no hate like Christian love.”

Post #: 1467

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/11/2008 9:34:00 AM

djskillz

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Yep. Does anyone think that Favre could have taken that pounding at his advanced age either?

I don't.

And Favre is less mobile than Rodgers at this point too, so they hits would have been even more frequent.

I would say that Favre, regardless of his age CAN take the pounding. He hasn't played all those consecutive games because he can't. No, he would have ducked his head into the defenders arm and drawn a roughing penalty on the D. He would have thrown the ball up more often, he would have taken hit after hit...but barring his arm falling off or legs snapped in two. Favre would have taken the pounding and kept going. It just would have made him more strongly consider retiring.

Oh, is he still on painkillers?

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."

Post #: 1468

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/11/2008 9:47:12 AM

Andy Lowe

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

Stuff from reading Packers Board

McCarthey sucks,
Thompson sucks
Rogers sucks
OL sucks
DL sucks
Defense is slow

sounds pretty familiar

Post #: 1469

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/11/2008 10:05:11 AM

Trekgeekscott

Posts: 39282
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Yep. Does anyone think that Favre could have taken that pounding at his advanced age either?

I don't.

And Favre is less mobile than Rodgers at this point too, so they hits would have been even more frequent.

I would say that Favre, regardless of his age CAN take the pounding. He hasn't played all those consecutive games because he can't. No, he would have ducked his head into the defenders arm and drawn a roughing penalty on the D. He would have thrown the ball up more often, he would have taken hit after hit...but barring his arm falling off or legs snapped in two. Favre would have taken the pounding and kept going. It just would have made him more strongly consider retiring.

Oh, is he still on painkillers?

Painkillers or not...the guy hasn't missed a game in 17 years. At a position that tends to take a beating. As much as he annoys me with the media love...his is one tough hombre.

_____________________________

“There is no hate like Christian love.”

Post #: 1470

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/11/2008 6:35:43 PM

Ron W

Posts: 548
Joined: 7/28/2007
From: Southern Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron W

Rogers did not exactly flourish under the extreme pressue of the Vikings D but he didn't make any big mistakes other than possibly not getting rid of the ball fast enough in the end zone for the safeties.

No, but he made a lot of little mistakes...and the safeties cost the Packers the game (the margin of victory was exactly 1 point). So I would call that a pretty big mistake.

quote:

I thought Rogers did a very good job of stepping up his game at the times when he had the opportunity. A case in point was after the first interception he led the Packers to a touchdown.

That was a good drive...ON A SHORT FIELD. That isn't all that impressive, especially since IIRC, Grant did most of the work.

quote:

The Vikings do that in the Colts game and they win the game. He put the Packers in position for field goals taking advantage of another interception

Again on a short field where they were already IN field goal range.

quote:

and the Vikings turning it over on downs in great field position.

That whole drive went about 6 yards total...tell me how Rodgers did a great job on that drive again?

quote:

He then led the Packers into position at the end of the game for a chance at the winning field goal.

He started at the 41 or so and had a lucky tip/catch on the play...

quote:

That's good quarterback play.

Not really.

quote:

In a game which the Vikings defense dominated Rogers did not make any major mistakes and put the Packers into a position where they were a missed field goal from winning.

Rodgers did not play a good game. the Packers offense didn't get past 100 total yards of offense until well into the second half of the game. The only reason the game was close was because of TWO TDs that had nothing to do with the offense. The only times Rodgers could muster points was on a short field. And he gave up two safeties. Under pressure he was missing wide open recievers. The only reason that anyone could consider it a good game...was that he didn't throw any pics. That's it.

Making plays on a short field when the team needs them to win the game is a sign of a good quarterback. The Vikings Defense was truly dominating on Sunday. I thought Rogers made the most out of his opportunities. In contrast, the Vikings had incredible field position for much of the game and squandered it.

Post #: 1471

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/11/2008 11:50:34 PM

thebigo

Posts: 28303
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron W

Rogers did not exactly flourish under the extreme pressue of the Vikings D but he didn't make any big mistakes other than possibly not getting rid of the ball fast enough in the end zone for the safeties.

I thought Rogers did a very good job of stepping up his game at the times when he had the opportunity. A case in point was after the first interception he led the Packers to a touchdown. The Vikings do that in the Colts game and they win the game. He put the Packers in position for field goals taking advantage of another interception and the Vikings turning it over on downs in great field position. He then led the Packers into position at the end of the game for a chance at the winning field goal. That's good quarterback play. In a game which the Vikings defense dominated Rogers did not make any major mistakes and put the Packers into a position where they were a missed field goal from winning.

That's worse than giving Brad Johnson the credit for the Vikes 2005 win over the Giants.

Post #: 1472

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/12/2008 1:09:10 PM

Ron W

Posts: 548
Joined: 7/28/2007
From: Southern Minnesota
Status: offline

The Vikings totally outclassed the Packers on Defense and in the running game on Sunday. If Gus had done the things for which I praised Rogers, that is not turn the ball over and complete drives on a short field for the Vikings, the game would not have been close. The Vikings would have won that game something like 40 - 10 even if Rogers had played as well as he did.

Post #: 1473

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/12/2008 2:18:29 PM

Trekgeekscott

Posts: 39282
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron W

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron W

Rogers did not exactly flourish under the extreme pressue of the Vikings D but he didn't make any big mistakes other than possibly not getting rid of the ball fast enough in the end zone for the safeties.

No, but he made a lot of little mistakes...and the safeties cost the Packers the game (the margin of victory was exactly 1 point). So I would call that a pretty big mistake.

quote:

I thought Rogers did a very good job of stepping up his game at the times when he had the opportunity. A case in point was after the first interception he led the Packers to a touchdown.

That was a good drive...ON A SHORT FIELD. That isn't all that impressive, especially since IIRC, Grant did most of the work.

quote:

The Vikings do that in the Colts game and they win the game. He put the Packers in position for field goals taking advantage of another interception

Again on a short field where they were already IN field goal range.

quote:

and the Vikings turning it over on downs in great field position.

That whole drive went about 6 yards total...tell me how Rodgers did a great job on that drive again?

quote:

He then led the Packers into position at the end of the game for a chance at the winning field goal.

He started at the 41 or so and had a lucky tip/catch on the play...

quote:

That's good quarterback play.

Not really.

quote:

In a game which the Vikings defense dominated Rogers did not make any major mistakes and put the Packers into a position where they were a missed field goal from winning.

Rodgers did not play a good game. the Packers offense didn't get past 100 total yards of offense until well into the second half of the game. The only reason the game was close was because of TWO TDs that had nothing to do with the offense. The only times Rodgers could muster points was on a short field. And he gave up two safeties. Under pressure he was missing wide open recievers. The only reason that anyone could consider it a good game...was that he didn't throw any pics. That's it.

Making plays on a short field when the team needs them to win the game is a sign of a good quarterback. The Vikings Defense was truly dominating on Sunday. I thought Rogers made the most out of his opportunities. In contrast, the Vikings had incredible field position for much of the game and squandered it.

Making plays on a LONG field when the team needs them to win the game is a sign of a good quarterback. On the drive that led to the missed Packer FG, he completed one big pass...and that was a lucky tipped and caught by his guy pass.

On the short field afforded the packers by the Vikings turning it over on downs...he drove them about 6 yards...whoo hoo. What plays did he make in that drive that were impressive. A three and out already in FG range is not good quarterbacking, especially when a TD in that situation likely puts the game out of reach for the Vikings.

Rodgers isn't a bad QB. Don't get me wrong...but he played a horseshit game on Sunday. The only reason it wasn't considered a total blowjob of a game by him is that he didn't throw pics. He did fumble which led one of the safeties.

If our Qb had that performance...we would be calling for his stinking head.

_____________________________

“There is no hate like Christian love.”

Post #: 1474

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/12/2008 2:19:59 PM

Trekgeekscott

Posts: 39282
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron W

The Vikings totally outclassed the Packers on Defense and in the running game on Sunday. If Gus had done the things for which I praised Rogers, that is not turn the ball over and complete drives on a short field for the Vikings, the game would not have been close. The Vikings would have won that game something like 40 - 10 even if Rogers had played as well as he did.

No one said Gus had a good game.

I will grant you that the Packers never would have had a short field or a TD return had Gus not thrown the pics. But still that doesn't make Rodgers day a good one.

_____________________________

“There is no hate like Christian love.”

Post #: 1475