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 61 62 [63] 64 65 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/28/2009 1:22:58 AM

marty

Posts: 13049
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

Good prediction Scott, but you'll look REALLY foolish if they once again go 0-16

. I think you're really going out on a limb.

Gonz

Yes, GB HAS stopped Adrian Peterson, 2 years ago they shut him down and knocked him out of the game. Remember Dirty Al Harris. GB has several players that play dirty, Hawk being one of the dirtiest. I've seen MANY replays where you can see Hawk throwing punches right before tackling guys, and going for their heads. Barnett and Bigby are also very aggressive. The good part about Hawk is he is not all that big, and I remember Jason Witten just throwing him off like he was a rag doll. I just dislike dirty players, and hope that Jared Allen doesn't carried away and motivates some GB thugs.

Nick Barnett has talked of how he can't wait to plant his helmet into Favre's chest. Isn't that spearing, and shouldn't the NFL warn against talk like that ? Is it o.k. as long as Barnett isn't going helmet to helmet ?

Post #: 1551

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/28/2009 8:23:01 AM

Lynn G.

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

... and what about Johnny Jolly? He was caught with illegal prescription drugs more than a year ago, but I've never heard anything about a possible suspension.

_____________________________

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

Post #: 1552

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/28/2009 11:22:45 AM

Ryan Buckingham

Posts: 899
Joined: 3/1/2008
From: Kasson, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

Good prediction Scott, but you'll look REALLY foolish if they once again go 0-16 . I think you're really going out on a limb.

Gonz

Yes, GB HAS stopped Adrian Peterson, 2 years ago they shut him down and knocked him out of the game. Remember Dirty Al Harris. GB has several players that play dirty, Hawk being one of the dirtiest. I've seen MANY replays where you can see Hawk throwing punches right before tackling guys, and going for their heads. Barnett and Bigby are also very aggressive. The good part about Hawk is he is not all that big, and I remember Jason Witten just throwing him off like he was a rag doll. I just dislike dirty players, and hope that Jared Allen doesn't carried away and motivates some GB thugs.

Nick Barnett has talked of how he can't wait to plant his helmet into Favre's chest. Isn't that spearing, and shouldn't the NFL warn against talk like that ? Is it o.k. as long as Barnett isn't going helmet to helmet ?

No, it is never legal to lead with the helmet, regardless of if it is helmet to helmet contact. However, they almost never call that in the NFL (spearing, butt blocking, face tackling, etc.).

_____________________________

Improvise, overcome and adapt!

Post #: 1553

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/28/2009 10:25:02 PM

marty

Posts: 13049
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

When I saw Aaron Kampann score a TD on a fumble by Warner, I couldn't help but think that Kampmann will NEVER make a LBer, he just didn't look right scoring that TD. WHAT are the Packers doing ?

Don't they know that with all that blitzing they are doing, it's going to allow a QB every week just enough time to beat Kampmann deep with a TE for at least 3 TDs a week ?

Why do they have a no name like Kevin Greene coaching the LBers, he's clueless and doesn't know how to motivate ? Why, after rarely blitzing and having their defense give up a ton of points last year, would they get a D coordinator to bring in all kinds of blitzing ? You can see the results already in pre-season, the Packers are going to give up SO many big plays, and will NEVER get any turnovers from their defense.

"Live by the blitz, DIE by the blitz", that is why the Eagles with Jimmy Johnson at DC are usually at the bottom of the league in defense and rarely get turnovers. That is why the Vikes last 2 DC have been so poor. Tomlin kept the blitzing going in Pittsburgh, I have NO idea how they won the SB, it must have been their explosive offense.

The Packers are the BEST team in the NFC hands down. Only the Saints can compete with them in a shootout, but they won't this year, not with the Packers' D.

Favre will probably struggle mightily against this D, the Vikes might get blown out AT HOME. They WILL get blown out in Lambau. The Packers will go no less than 12-4.

The Packers have it all with virtually NO weakness.  The only way the Vikes beat them is by punching them in the mouth with Allen, Winfield, the Williamses, Hutchinson, McKinnie, Loadholt, Peterson, Taylor, etc.... The Vikes need to burn the blitzes with dumpoffs to Harvin and Peterson, maybe deep passes.

It's not looking good folks, it might be over before it ever begins. The only thing I'm hopeful is that McCarthy screws things up, or there are LOTS of injuries to Packer players. Maybe the Bears will beat them up a bit in the first game, one can only hope.

Post #: 1554

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/29/2009 7:51:38 AM

John Childress

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

Rodgers finished 14 of 19 to improve to 28 of 37 in the preseason for 458 yards and six touchdowns with no interceptions. Green Bay has outscored its opponents 76-10 in the first half of the three preseason contests.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=290828022

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 1555

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/29/2009 8:56:53 AM

thebigo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

Whoa - this was in Peter King's column:

quote:

• Green Bay. B.J. Raji's the best anchor for a 3-4 in this draft. I don't trust Clay Matthews, but we'll see. Why? He walked onto the USC campus weighing 161 pounds. Is his frame fine, adding 80 pounds in such a short time?

How does a guy add 80 pounds in any kind of healthy way. Is that number accurate?

Between the end of his final college seasonand the NFL combine, and the Shawn Merriman added 30 lbs and took 2 tenths of a second off his 40 time. So we know it can be done.

Post #: 1556

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/29/2009 8:58:46 AM

thebigo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

My buddy lost 140 lbs last weekend.

Got a divorce?

Died and donated his body to science?

Post #: 1557

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/29/2009 9:00:04 AM

thebigo

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Duane Sampson

Yep!

They split the house 50/50 - he got the outside.

I'm guessing he only gained about 100 lbs on his wedding day?

Post #: 1558

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/29/2009 9:04:55 AM

thebigo

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

.

< Message edited by thebigo -- 8/29/2009 9:09:02 AM >

Post #: 1559

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/29/2009 10:30:03 AM

Lynn G.

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

Well Marty - you sure made Cheesehead Craig's day!

_____________________________

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

Post #: 1560

RE: RE:The Packers - 8/30/2009 9:04:53 PM

Cheesehead Craig

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

I love Marty's enthusiasm for the Packers and so far the Packers starters are not just beating other team's starters, they are dominating.

Still pre-season and until they are doing this on a consistent basis during the season, I'll try and keep my happiness down just a bit. But it's damn hard when they keep putting on performances like they have.

Post #: 1561

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/4/2009 2:10:19 PM

Cheesehead Craig

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

Last preseason game is done and that's about all that needs to be said about the game. Good to see that Barnett and Matthews got some solid playing time given they've been injured all preason. Raji is playing very well and looks to be as good as billed when he was drafted.

I don't know about all y'all, but I'm ready for some regular season football!

Post #: 1562

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/13/2009 11:07:04 PM

Cheesehead Craig

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

GAME ONE VS CHICAGO W 21-15
The defense really played a great game despite being on the field so much due to the offense just being flat for most of the game.

Rodgers was off on several throws and he just got worse as some of the worst pass blocking I've seen in a while almost cost us the game. RT Barbie was just a piece of junk out there allowing 2 sacks and 6-7 hurries I think. The Pack wasted outstanding field position in the first half and those missed opportunities can come back and bite you, but ARod lead a great comeback to give us the win. On another offensive note, Ryan Grant really ran well in the 2nd half. It's been a while since I've seen him run with that toughness and determination.

The defense was dominating for the first half. 3 INTs and pressured Cutler all half long while shutting down the run. They were tired in the second half and it showed as the pass rush trailed off and the pass coverage suffered because the offense was so poor leaving them out there for far too long. Al Harris with the big INT to seal the game.

I was pretty impressed with the Bears defense. It's better than last year's unit and the DL play is noticeably improved.

Very happy to get the win. Just goes to show that the preseason doesn't mean much in regards to how the offense looked.

Post #: 1563

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/13/2009 11:44:27 PM

John Childress

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

I would say the Packers offense has a lot of improving to do before it faces the Vikings defense!

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!

Post #: 1564

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/13/2009 11:52:25 PM

Cheesehead Craig

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

I would say the Packers offensive line has a lot of improving to do before it faces the Vikings defense!

Fixed that for you.

Post #: 1565

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/14/2009 7:40:19 AM

Duane Sampson

Posts: 14200
Status: offline

Just beat the Bears, baby. I'm always a Packer fan twice a year.

Post #: 1566

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/14/2009 7:59:19 AM

Lynn G.

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

Just based purely on the first week of the season the sports writers must be kicking themselves for picking the Packers to take the division. The defense earned their pay, but the offense really struggled.

It was an interesting game because neither offense could put anything together for the first half. Both sides made halftime adjustments and had better second halves, but neither team looked like world beaters.

But first games mean just a little bit more than preseason. Some teams just take some time to get it together.

_____________________________

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

Post #: 1567

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/14/2009 8:24:32 AM

Duane Sampson

Posts: 14200
Status: offline

Nothing like a crap game for a cry baby QB right out of the gate.

Post #: 1568

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/14/2009 8:45:35 PM

marty

Posts: 13049
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

I expected the Packers to blowout the Bears in this one, so the Packers are not as good as I thought, and the Bears are better than I thought.

I still think Lovie is the best coach in the division, and he took a team with inferior talent on the road against a team that had its' offense clicking in the pre-season, and he made it a game that could have went either way.

Lovie instills a toughness that the Vikings now have, and the Packers lack. His team looked well coached, defensive line played very well. I think his team lacks the horses, but by the end of the year Cutler COULD have them rolling, and they could end up taking the division.

I think the stupidest play was a bomb on 3rd and 1, the one that went to Jennings to win the game. Although the Packers have the WRs to their advantage, a deep pass like that is low percentage, and if it had NOT worked out, they would have had to do a 4th and 1 where the defense probably would have been geared up to stop the run.

It would have been smarter for the Pack to just try to pick up the 1st down with a run play. The pass to Jennings might have worked, but I think if they did the bomb 5 more times this season in the exact same situation, I think they would probably convert 2 of 5, maybe even 1 of 5. This shows me that McCarthy is not very smart.

This game also showed that a physical defense can rattle Rodgers, to the point where his passes are off. He has a pretty good deep game, but is not excellent with the short stuff, to convert 3rd downs and pull out close games (like Big Ben does regularly). I also think Cutler is about the same way. The Vikes have an advantage in this area with Favre, but I still think he needs to complete some deep passes to keep teams honest.

So you had 2 non clutch QBs going at it, and one of them had to lose. I expected going into the game that Rodgers would be MUCH better in sync with his MUCH better WR corps, while Cutler would struggle being in sync with his INFERIOR WR corps. Therefore, I expected a blowout win for the Pack with their opportunistic defense. But the Bears kept it close because they are disciplined, well coached and physical.

The Packers were lucky to win this one, and could well lose to the Urlacher-less Bears later in the season in Chicago, should Cutler get his timing down with WRs. I wouldn't count on Viking wins against the Bears either, it's too bad the Vikes don't play the Bears early in the season.

I think the Vikes will probably split with the Pack, I'm just not sure which game which team will win.

Post #: 1569

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/15/2009 3:04:52 PM

Cheesehead Craig

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

I disagree with a good number of your points there Marty.

No toughness on the Packers? There's plenty of toughness on the defensive side (just ask Forte and Cutler) and Grant was a very physical runner for the second half.

The 3rd and 1 play was genius. They did a play action when they knew the defense was going to sell out to stop the run on that third and short. The Bears had 10, yes 10 men in the box to stop the run on that play. Leaving Jennings one on one was stupid and the Packers capitalized on it big time. It was the only play action the Packers ran all game. THAT'S good playcalling right there.

The offensive line was brutal this past game. Rodgers got constantly pressured and that along with penalties put us in multiple 3rd and longs. I think we had 6 or 7 3rd and 10+ yds. That's tough to convert. I agree that Rodgers got rattled. He was nervous and rightfully so about the protection. Big Ben gets all day to throw, so that comparison is lacking in that regard as Pitts OL is a better pass blocking unit than the Packers are. Every QB gets rattled after taking a beating as they know the rush is coming, you make it sound like it's just ARod.

ARod was clutch that final drive when his team needed him. That label of him not winning games and being clutch in the 4th is so overblown. He got the lead or tied the game 5 times last year with 6 minutes or less in the game and the defense allowed a score every single time afterwards. I think he's going to start proving a lot of doubters wrong. He had a bad game vs Chicago but was big when it counted.

I don't agree with the assessment that the Bears were disciplined (4 INTs) or well coached (the fake punt) as why the game was close. The game was close due to the horrible pass blocking by the Packers and Rodgers missing on several open deep throws one to Driver that was a walk in TD and another that he underthew Jennings which would have been another TD as he had both defenders beat. I will give the Bears credit for a great pass rush and if that's your reasoning for them being physical, then fine. But the Packers were equally physical on the defensive side as they pressured Cutler very well and completely shut down Forte so at best the physicality was equal.

Post #: 1570

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/15/2009 3:22:27 PM

Trekgeekscott

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead Craig

I disagree with a good number of your points there Marty.

No toughness on the Packers? There's plenty of toughness on the defensive side (just ask Forte and Cutler) and Grant was a very physical runner for the second half.

The 3rd and 1 play was genius. They did a play action when they knew the defense was going to sell out to stop the run on that third and short. The Bears had 10, yes 10 men in the box to stop the run on that play. Leaving Jennings one on one was stupid and the Packers capitalized on it big time. It was the only play action the Packers ran all game. THAT'S good playcalling right there.

The offensive line was brutal this past game. Rodgers got constantly pressured and that along with penalties put us in multiple 3rd and longs. I think we had 6 or 7 3rd and 10+ yds. That's tough to convert. I agree that Rodgers got rattled. He was nervous and rightfully so about the protection. Big Ben gets all day to throw, so that comparison is lacking in that regard as Pitts OL is a better pass blocking unit than the Packers are. Every QB gets rattled after taking a beating as they know the rush is coming, you make it sound like it's just ARod.

ARod was clutch that final drive when his team needed him. That label of him not winning games and being clutch in the 4th is so overblown. He got the lead or tied the game 5 times last year with 6 minutes or less in the game and the defense allowed a score every single time afterwards. I think he's going to start proving a lot of doubters wrong. He had a bad game vs Chicago but was big when it counted.

I don't agree with the assessment that the Bears were disciplined (4 INTs) or well coached (the fake punt) as why the game was close. The game was close due to the horrible pass blocking by the Packers and Rodgers missing on several open deep throws one to Driver that was a walk in TD and another that he underthew Jennings which would have been another TD as he had both defenders beat. I will give the Bears credit for a great pass rush and if that's your reasoning for them being physical, then fine. But the Packers were equally physical on the defensive side as they pressured Cutler very well and completely shut down Forte so at best the physicality was equal.

I agree with Marty that the Packers aren't as good as people think. They picked off the Bears 4 times and needed a clutch drive to win. That right there tells you not to get too excited.

The Packers weaknesses are the OLine and a new defensive scheme. They could and should improve both as the season progresses...

The Bears aren't as good as their fans hoped. I think the team is well enough coached to have stayed in this game despite the turnovers and losing two starting LBs during the course of the game...but alas...the good coaching may be all that saves them.

_____________________________

“There is no hate like Christian love.”

Post #: 1571

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/15/2009 3:41:26 PM

Cheesehead Craig

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

The Pack got overhyped in the preseason (admittedly I got a bit too giddy about it myself) due to how well they played.

The OL is a concern but I think Barbie will be better and they will get some things figured out there. Thank goodness for Cincy and St. Louis next for us to get things worked out.

Post #: 1572

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/15/2009 3:53:33 PM

Lynn G.

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

It's not my place to correct a Packer fan about his own team, but the guy's name is Barbre.

Or were you just being sarcastic and comparing him to the buxom doll?

_____________________________

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

Post #: 1573

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/15/2009 5:11:53 PM

Cheesehead Craig

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

It's not my place to correct a Packer fan about his own team, but the guy's name is Barbre.

Or were you just being sarcastic and comparing him to the buxom doll?

The old looks like Tarzan plays like Jane comment...

Well, he played like Barbie.

Post #: 1574

RE: RE:The Packers - 9/15/2009 8:20:50 PM

marty

Posts: 13049
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

I think the Bears are very much inferior to the Pack in talent, along with the QB not used to his WRs, but were still in the game because they are well coached. They seemed more disciplined and physical than the Pack.  I think the INTs fall on Cutler and I'm not sure what to think of the fake punt just yet.

So I think the Bears played well except for Cutler, but he could end up being a strong player by the end of the season. It might be a GOOD the the Packers beat the Bears to decrease the likelihood of a really hot Bears team at the end of the season. Knocking out Urlacher also helps the Vikings' chances. I fear the Bears more because of their coaching, I think (and hope) McCarthy will find ways to blow it with his more talented team.

I have to disagree with Craig, I think the bomb on 3rd and 1 (on 3rd and THREE it might have made sense) was a boneheaded call. Passes that deep are low percentage, just like the ones Rogers was missing on earlier in the game, probably because he was rattled. All the defender needed to do on the 3rd and 1 deep pass to Jennings was stay in the same zip code and he could have knocked the ball away.

I remember the Vikings under Tice doing a deep throw on 3rd and 1 and it backfired, and I also remember several other teams doing it over the years, and it usually backfires. Had the Packers missed on that play, they would have been stuck with a 4th and 1 late in a game where they were behind.  The Bears probably would have stuffed the 4th and 1, assuming the Packers would NOT have gambled with a deep pass on the 4th and 1, as that REALLY would have looked stupid should it have failed.

You should just run it on 3rd and 1, if you can't pick up a 1st down on both 3rd and 1, and 4th and 1, you're probably not a very good team. McCarthy gambled in a game where he was being outcoached and losing at home, despite his having a team that is superior in talent. McCarthy got lucky, but I think he'll come up short more often than not with decisions like that in the future.

The Packers with a 3-4 defense and all that speed, seem like they are more built for a Dome than the Vikings, and the Vikings are now looking like a team that is more built for the outdoors than the Pack. The Vikings are VERY big on both the OL and the DL, and you might end up seeing the Packers win at the Dome, while the Vikings win at Lambau. IF the Vikes win at home the Pack could be in trouble of getting swept by the Vikes, with Favre getting back at Ted Thompson in Lambau.

< Message edited by marty -- 9/15/2009 8:23:22 PM >

Post #: 1575