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 58 59 [60] 61 62 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/12/2008 5:30:56 PM

Ron W

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

Making plays on a LONG field when the team needs them to win the game is a sign of a GREAT quarterback. I wouldn't call Rogers game a great game by any means. I thought that the Vikings defense put on a truly dominating performance. With that in mind I thought Rogers played a good game even though the overall offensive performance was poor. In a day where the Packer's offensive line was totally dominated, and the Packers Defense gave up more rushing yards than at any time in the Vikings Packers rivalry, Rogers did not turnover the ball and the Packers were in a position to win at the end. That indicates fairly good quarterback play. Rogers play was way down the list of problems for Green Bay.

I'm not sure our positions on this are that far apart. We may differ on what is good qb play vs. great qb play. Great qb play may have lifted the Packers into scoring points even though the Vikings defense was awesome.

I find it encouraging that the Vikings were able to totally dominate on third down even though Green Bay's quarterback didn't suck. There is something satisfying about holding the position that Green Bay sucks therefore all of their players suck but I am encouraged by the thought that a Vikings defense that has been pitiful on third down for many years dominated the Packers offense even though they have a pretty good quarterback. I would not have been as impressed with the Vikings performance if I thought Rogers had had an off game or was a poor qb.

If Rogers had moved beyond that and led the Packers on a long field with a poor running game and poor pass protection his play would have moved beyond good quarterback play to great quarterback play.

Post #: 1476

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/12/2008 7:08:38 PM

John Childress

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

Both guys were around 15 for 27 with 150 yards

Rodgers was 0 and 0

Gus 2 TDs 3 INTs

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 1477

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 7:32:26 AM

Trekgeekscott

Posts: 39669
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron W

Making plays on a LONG field when the team needs them to win the game is a sign of a GREAT quarterback. I wouldn't call Rogers game a great game by any means. I thought that the Vikings defense put on a truly dominating performance. With that in mind I thought Rogers played a good game even though the overall offensive performance was poor. In a day where the Packer's offensive line was totally dominated, and the Packers Defense gave up more rushing yards than at any time in the Vikings Packers rivalry, Rogers did not turnover the ball and the Packers were in a position to win at the end. That indicates fairly good quarterback play. Rogers play was way down the list of problems for Green Bay.

No, the only reason they were in a position to win was because of a punt returned for a TD and an interception returned for a TD. 14 points that Rodgers had exactly nothing to do with...add the 3 points that he earned on that glorious 6 yard drive after the Vikes turned the ball over on downs. And you have 17 points that were not his responsibility. All the rest came on short fields. And though he didn't officially turn the ball over...his attempt to avoid a defensive Td or Safety resulted in a safety and that whole play was caused by HIM FUMBLING. and that final drive to get into FG range wasn't good QB play...it was sheer luck. A Ball tipped an by luck it fell into a Packers receiver's hands. He did not have a game that most people would consider good. He had a game that most people would consider pathetic.

quote:

I'm not sure our positions on this are that far apart. We may differ on what is good qb play vs. great qb play. Great qb play may have lifted the Packers into scoring points even though the Vikings defense was awesome.

That may be true. But the only reason I could call Rodgers game a good one...is that he threw no pics. He did nothing else that impressed me at all.

quote:

I find it encouraging that the Vikings were able to totally dominate on third down even though Green Bay's quarterback didn't suck. There is something satisfying about holding the position that Green Bay sucks therefore all of their players suck but I am encouraged by the thought that a Vikings defense that has been pitiful on third down for many years dominated the Packers offense even though they have a pretty good quarterback. I would not have been as impressed with the Vikings performance if I thought Rogers had had an off game or was a poor qb.

I was impressed with the Vikings defense because they played such a dominating game that forced Rodgers to play a horsh it game. I don't think Rodgers is a bad QB at all...first half of the season showed that he can be very good in fact. He's currently the best one in the division without question. But even good QBs have bad games...and this one definately borders on bad.

quote:

If Rogers had moved beyond that and led the Packers on a long field with a poor running game and poor pass protection his play would have moved beyond good quarterback play to great quarterback play.

I still say he didn't have good qb play that day...

_____________________________

I'd like to thank my arms for always being beside me, My legs for supporting me and my fingers. I can always count on them.

Post #: 1478

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 10:23:02 AM

John Childress

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

Would you rather have their QBs or our's?

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 1479

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 10:33:25 AM

Trekgeekscott

Posts: 39669
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

Would you rather have their QBs or our's?

That wasn't the point of the discussion. Ron was claiming that Rodgers actually had a good game. I disputed that. The only reason someone could claim that is that he didn't throw any pics IMHO.

I have stated already, in this discussion, that Rodgers is currently the best QB in the division. I would love to have him, to be honest (but then I think KA could screw him up too), but that wasn't the point of the discussion. I actually think the only reason the game was as close as it was, was Gus Frerrotte's 3 ints and a punt return for a TD. Gus was the predominant reason the game was close.

So to answer your question..I would rather have theirs...

Do you have an opinion on whether Rodgers actually played a good game against the Vikings?

_____________________________

I'd like to thank my arms for always being beside me, My legs for supporting me and my fingers. I can always count on them.

Post #: 1480

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 10:53:51 AM

Don T in CO

Posts: 4759
Joined: 7/22/2007
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

Would you rather have their QBs or our's?

That wasn't the point of the discussion. Ron was claiming that Rodgers actually had a good game. I disputed that. The only reason someone could claim that is that he didn't throw any pics IMHO.

I have stated already, in this discussion, that Rodgers is currently the best QB in the division. I would love to have him, to be honest (but then I think KA could screw him up too), but that wasn't the point of the discussion. I actually think the only reason the game was as close as it was, was Gus Frerrotte's 3 ints and a punt return for a TD. Gus was the predominant reason the game was close.

So to answer your question..I would rather have theirs...

Do you have an opinion on whether Rodgers actually played a good game against the Vikings?

If you watch the highlights that I posted in the gameday thread (re-linked below), even the Packer announcers say something like "Gus Frerotte is single-handedly keeping the Packers in this game" after his 3rd INT.

http://www.nfl.com/partner?partnerType=game-of-the-week&season=2008&seasonType=REG&week=10

Post #: 1481

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 10:56:03 AM

Toby Stumbo

Posts: 18463
Joined: 12/11/2006
From: Central Minnesota
Status: offline

I posted that video in the AD video thread as well Don.

_____________________________

GO VIKES!

Post #: 1482

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 11:54:00 AM

Ron W

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

If the Vikings defense had not been playings so well I certainly agree that Rogers did not have a good game. But the Vikings defense was playing very well, the Packers running game was inadequate, the offensive line was providing no protection. Under those circumstances protecting the ball and scoring when opportunities are present is pretty good quarterbacking. It is true that Roger's game would have been totally inadequate if Gus and the Vikings punt coverage team hadn't tried so hard to give the Packers another win. I don't recall seeing a lot of missed throws on Rogers part although under the pressure he was facing it would be understandable if he did miss some. There were also some possible interceptions that the defense dropped.

There are very few quarterbacks who can play a flawless game under the kind of pressure the Vikings were putting on the Packers and gain a lot of yardage. My understanding is that you would say that in order to have played a good game Rogers would have had to not only not make any turnovers and take advantage of the short field opportunities. He would have had to gain say at least 100 more yards and throw like two touchdown passes before his performance would have passed out of the realm of "poor".

The Packers were within a last second field goal that barely went wide right of winning that game. The primary reason they were in that game was because of the two returns for touchdowns and other turnovers by the Vikings which led to points. Yet I would maintain that Roger's play was good enough to get them in that position.

If I were offered the opportunity to trade Gus or TJack plus a number one draft choice for Rogers I would have no trouble pulling the trigger and I would be surprised if you also wouldn't also make that trade.

Post #: 1483

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 12:22:16 PM

Trekgeekscott

Posts: 39669
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron W

If the Vikings defense had not been playings so well I certainly agree that Rogers did not have a good game. But the Vikings defense was playing very well, the Packers running game was inadequate, the offensive line was providing no protection. Under those circumstances protecting the ball and scoring when opportunities are present is pretty good quarterbacking. It is true that Roger's game would have been totally inadequate if Gus and the Vikings punt coverage team hadn't tried so hard to give the Packers another win. I don't recall seeing a lot of missed throws on Rogers part although under the pressure he was facing it would be understandable if he did miss some. There were also some possible interceptions that the defense dropped.

And our defense dropping ints makes his performance better? I don't see how.

quote:

There are very few quarterbacks who can play a flawless game under the kind of pressure the Vikings were putting on the Packers and gain a lot of yardage. My understanding is that you would say that in order to have played a good game Rogers would have had to not only not make any turnovers and take advantage of the short field opportunities. He would have had to gain say at least 100 more yards and throw like two touchdown passes before his performance would have passed out of the realm of "poor".

He didn't effectively move the ball unless there was a short field, and Ryan Grant had more to do with that than Rodgers. It isn't about yardage or how many TDs he threw. The Green Bay offense was nearly completely ineffective. When that happens, even with the Defense being that dominant, the QB didn't have a good game...Note...the defense playing that well is what caused him to have a bad game.

quote:

The Packers were within a last second field goal that barely went wide right of winning that game. The primary reason they were in that game was because of the two returns for touchdowns and other turnovers by the Vikings which led to points. Yet I would maintain that Roger's play was good enough to get them in that position.

But again the key play on that drive that PUT them in FG range in the first place was a tipped pass that by sheer luck fell into Donald Driver's hands...it wasn't good play by Rodgers...it was sheer LUCK. And that isn't even bringing up the KO return to the GB 41 yard line that set up that drive...they don't get into FG range IMHO if the ST stuffs them back around the 20. Rodgers wasn't having a good enough day to drive them the 50 yards they would have needed instead of the 25 they got.

quote:

If I were offered the opportunity to trade Gus or TJack plus a number one draft choice for Rogers I would have no trouble pulling the trigger and I would be surprised if you also wouldn't also make that trade.

That isn't what we were talking about. I've already stated more than once that Rodgers is a good QB. Better than any other in the Division right now. And I am not comparing Frerrotte's game with Rodgers...I am just arguing that Rodgers didn't have a good game. It wasn't horrendous or disasterous to be sure...but it wasn't good. I give him credit for not throwing any pics under that pressure. But that does not make his game good.

I think we just need to agree to disagree here.

_____________________________

I'd like to thank my arms for always being beside me, My legs for supporting me and my fingers. I can always count on them.

Post #: 1484

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 12:33:21 PM

Ron W

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

I agree.

Post #: 1485

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 3:18:48 PM

Don T in CO

Posts: 4759
Joined: 7/22/2007
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

Going through some stats and I noticed a few things about recent super bowl winners-

The NYG were the first SB winner to finish lower than 10th in both points scored and points allowed (finished 14th and 17th respectively). In fact their combined PF and PA ranking (14+17=31) is the highest of any SB winner in history, which was previously held by the 2006 IND Colts (PF=T2, PA=22, Total=25.5). In fact the '06 Colts and '07 Giants are the only SB winners to ever be ranked worse than 13th in PA.

Post #: 1486

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 3:59:59 PM

John Childress

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Trekgeekscott

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

Would you rather have their QBs or our's?

That wasn't the point of the discussion. Ron was claiming that Rodgers actually had a good game. I disputed that. The only reason someone could claim that is that he didn't throw any pics IMHO.

I have stated already, in this discussion, that Rodgers is currently the best QB in the division. I would love to have him, to be honest (but then I think KA could screw him up too), but that wasn't the point of the discussion. I actually think the only reason the game was as close as it was, was Gus Frerrotte's 3 ints and a punt return for a TD. Gus was the predominant reason the game was close.

So to answer your question..I would rather have theirs...

Do you have an opinion on whether Rodgers actually played a good game against the Vikings?

I would say his game was about a C-. The safeties are on him for poor field awareness. You could rate this game as a D unless you adjust for the ferocity of the pass rush he was facing. It was one of his 3 worst games of the year, no doubt.

I still think he had a better game than Gus who had 3 unforced INTs.

Rodgers still has a ways to go and his questionable "physicality" makes me wonder if he will ever be a top NFL QB.

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 1487

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 4:05:03 PM

Lynn G.

Posts: 33858
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

McCarthy doesn't look anywhere near as brilliant as a head coach when he doesn't have a hall-of-fame quarterback.

_____________________________

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

Post #: 1488

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 4:08:53 PM

John Childress

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

McCarthy doesn't look anywhere near as brilliant as a head coach when he doesn't have a hall-of-fame quarterback.

You got me on that one

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 1489

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 4:11:50 PM

Lynn G.

Posts: 33858
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline

Phew. I actually was going to post that in here, saw that yours was the last post, and I almost thought I'd wait because I thought you'd figure I was directing it at you and I was really just making a general comment.

But I'm glad you are so good natured about it.

_____________________________

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

Post #: 1490

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 4:36:51 PM

David Levine

Posts: 78717
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

McCarthy doesn't look anywhere near as brilliant as a head coach when he doesn't have a hall-of-fame quarterback.

I'm still trying to figure out why they went away from those quick slants.

Post #: 1491

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 4:42:34 PM

Don T in CO

Posts: 4759
Joined: 7/22/2007
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: David Levine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

McCarthy doesn't look anywhere near as brilliant as a head coach when he doesn't have a hall-of-fame quarterback.

I'm still trying to figure out why they went away from those quick slants.

I read somewhere that the Vikings kind of countered that by stuffing the inside passing lanes knowing the GB was going to try some of the same things that were successful in week 1.

Post #: 1492

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 5:03:08 PM

John Childress

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

Lynn

If you dish it out you have to be able to take it!

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 1493

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/13/2008 11:23:55 PM

Ron W

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

The big difference between the first Packer game and the second Packer game for the Vikings defense was that in the second Packer game the defense eliminated the explosive plays which killed them in the first game.

When I compare the first Packers game to the second Packers game on the surface the Packers offense looks much better in the first game with a much higher completion percentage, a little bit better third down conversion percentage but the real difference was two plays, a long 56 yard pass to Jennings and a long 57 yard run by Grant. Without those two plays the Packers offense scores 3 points, 6 points if they don't get the one field goal blocked which had about the same net effect as a miss except the field position ended up better for the Packers with the block. Without the 56 yard pass to Jennings Rogers yardage totals are ten yards more for the first game then they were for the second despite having a much higher completion percentage. If the Vikings had held Grant to no gain on the 57 yard run he would have been limited to 35 yards rushing in the first game vs 75 in the second game.

Neither the 56 yard pass or the 57 yard run scored but they both took Green Bay from punting position to inside the 5 yard line which led to touchdowns. As dominating as the Vikings pass rush was in the second game and as nice as it was to have those two safeties the most important difference on the scoreboard was the Vikings eliminating the explosive near scoring plays.

Post #: 1494

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/14/2008 9:58:09 AM

Don T in CO

Posts: 4759
Joined: 7/22/2007
From: Colorado Springs
Status: offline

Nice post Ron.

Even without the two long plays of 57 and 56 yards, the GB offense was a bit more successful in the first game. In the first game the Pack had 49 offensive plays for 317 yards (taking away the two long plays the Pack had 204 yards on 47 plays = 4.34yds/op) and in the rematch the Pack was held to 184 yards on 48 offensive plays (=3.83yds/op), but yes - holding the Pack without huge plays was a key difference between the two games; that, and holding the Pack to 1/11 on 3rd downs vs 4/10 in the first game.

Post #: 1495

RE: RE:The Packers - 11/14/2008 12:39:21 PM

Ron W

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

What I find interesting is that the only times that the GB offense scored touchdowns in that game was when they made those explosive plays. Without the explosive plays it seems likely that the Packers were looking at punts rather than TDs. With all their effeciency and increased yardage the GB offense could very likely have come up with a grand total of three points.

The problem was with the Vikings offense being as poor as it was at the time if the opposition had a couple of big plays the game was out of reach for the Vikings unless they had a couple of returns for touchdowns themselves or a record setting day rushing the football.

Post #: 1496

RE: RE:The Packers - 12/3/2008 9:42:59 AM

Duane Sampson

Posts: 14200
Status: offline

It's several days later, and all of North Carolina is still in a lather over this Packers fan, who took exception to the Panthers' DeAngelo Williams tossing his touchdown footballs to Carolina fans in the front row of the end zone stands at Lambeau. This one was completed, but the next one was successfully batted back onto the playing field by the gloved vigilante (see video below). This made him, as WTMJ-Radio put it, responsible for "the only defensive play made against the Panthers all day."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5jeNpBJ3xw&e

Post #: 1497

RE: RE:The Packers - 12/28/2008 3:51:18 PM

Guest

Ahhhh Packer Fans at Lamblow taunting the Lions and chanting "0-16" I find it unbelievable that I used to root for this team growing up in the 80's. Yes, the Vikings have always been my favorite team but I lived in Wisconsin most of my childhood and sat with my grandpa on Sundays and rooted for the Packers....(except when they played the Vikes...and then I wasn't invited over). Packer fans are easily the worst fans in all of the NFL. They feel as if they are owed something evry single season as if it should be handed to them on a silver platter.....Yes, they have tradition and history on their side...but you'd think that they would use that as something that show's they are to be revered as a team instead of a bunch of whiney, pathetic, losers who can't help but cry when things don't go their way......You troll these threads when the Vikes lose......rub it in on these threads when the Packers are doing well and don't show up when there is egg on your face......classless......positively classless.......

Post #: 1498

RE: RE:The Packers - 12/28/2008 4:00:19 PM

So.Mn.Fan

Posts: 20313
Status: offline

Good stuff Ed
0-16 shouldn't be wished on anyone.
Lets hope it "comes around" on them.

Post #: 1499

RE: RE:The Packers - 12/28/2008 4:46:28 PM

Duane Sampson

Posts: 14200
Status: offline

oh and sixteen??? Is that what they were yelling?

I couldn't understand their chant but I knew it was in Wisconsin so they weren't yelling, "Oh the chick's lean!"