Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports 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  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE:The Packers - 10/1/2007 7:33:00 AM   
djskillz


Posts: 56861
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
[quote="John Childress"]The only NFC team playing better than GB is Dallas. Seattle MAY get good enough to beat GB - but they are a soft team. TB is still an unknown.[/quote] I suppose I agree with that, but I STILL don't think GB is "good." I just think our conference, and football as a whole right now, is that bad. There are basically 3-4 teams that are really GOOD and everyone else is a FG apart. Parity really is here! :)
Post #: 151
RE:The Packers - 10/1/2007 1:05:44 PM   
John Childress


Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline
Everything is relative. Relative to the teams in the NFL today GB is "good". There are not 10 teams better than them right now. Denver showed their true colors - just like I predicted.
Post #: 152
RE:The Packers - 10/3/2007 6:03:44 AM   
djskillz


Posts: 56861
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
[quote="John Childress"]Everything is relative. Relative to the teams in the NFL today GB is "good". There are not 10 teams better than them right now. Denver showed their true colors - just like I predicted.[/quote] Right. I think you're basically agreeing with me. League parity is here!
Post #: 153
RE:The Packers - 10/3/2007 12:18:59 PM   
John Childress


Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline
the othr thing to remember is many times teams that are mediocre now are good by the end of the year as they improve. Seattle has a chance to get better in the NFC. I bet TB goes the other way as injuries take their toll and Garcia wears down over 16 games The Vikings could get on a mini roll and win 3 or 4 of the next 7 (assuming the Eagles and Chargers keep slumping) or the wheels will fall completely off if we go 1-6 in this stretch. We must start with a win over a depleted Bears team or BC will not alst the year.
Post #: 154
RE:The Packers - 10/3/2007 5:17:49 PM   
Cheesehead Craig


Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline
The Packers have a shot this week at burying the hated Bears. We have to capitalize on this golden opportunity and end their season now.
Post #: 155
RE:The Packers - 10/3/2007 5:23:51 PM   
Lynn G.


Posts: 29290
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline
You guys have backed into a dream schedule Craig. The first four games of the season you played wounded teams with backup quarterbacks, shoulder-separated quarterbacks, disintegrating coaching staffs (Chargers) and mistake-prone special teams (Eagles) - - - - - - and now you catch the Bears with a back-up quarterback and an injury depleted defense. A good recipe for a fast start. Looking ahead I only see the Dallas Cowboys as being full strength and loaded for you to deal with. You guys might have the breaks that the Bears got last season.
Post #: 156
RE:The Packers - 10/3/2007 5:59:30 PM   
David Levine


Posts: 71284
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: online
Packers have surprised the heck out of me. I do think they are going to need to find a running game at some point - especially as the weather gets worse.
Post #: 157
RE:The Packers - 10/3/2007 7:32:29 PM   
djskillz


Posts: 56861
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
[quote="David Levine"]Packers have surprised the heck out of me. I do think they are going to need to find a running game at some point - especially as the weather gets worse.[/quote] Yep. You can't win longterm without one. It's all about balance.
Post #: 158
RE:The Packers - 10/4/2007 7:10:38 PM   
David Moufang

 

Posts: 1177
Joined: 7/29/2007
From: Columbia Crest
Status: offline
[quote="Cheesehead Craig"]The Packers have a shot this week at burying the hated Bears. We have to capitalize on this golden opportunity and end their season now. [/quote] They'd better bury them. Packers haven't beaten Chicago at Lambeau since 2003. Last time we were that bad against them was during the Mike Ditka years, 1984-1988.
Post #: 159
RE:The Packers - 10/4/2007 7:44:16 PM   
Lynn G.


Posts: 29290
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline
David, You're catching the Bears at a perfect time. Quarterback woes and all kinds of key players on defense injured. By all rights, the Packers should win hands down.
Post #: 160
RE:The Packers - 10/4/2007 8:02:23 PM   
Duane Sampson


Posts: 14200
Status: offline
Better to be safe than sorry Matt Tevsh matttevsh@hotmail.com Posted Oct 4, 2007 Al Harris has had a sore back since training camp. PackerReport.com's Matt Tevsh says that sitting Harris for a game or two will be better for the Packers in the long run. Al Harris is to the Packers’ defense what Brett Favre is to the Packers’ offense. He is its resident “ironman” and arguably the unit’s most valuable player. The 10th year cornerback (fifth with the Packers) has started 68 straight regular season games since coming to Green Bay, most of anyone on defense. He plays a position, cornerback, which is not easily replaceable by a second-teamer and in many cases is exploited by opposing teams in the absence of reliable starter. With respect to players like Aaron Kampman and Nick Barnett, if there is one irreplaceable player on the Packers’ defense, it is probably Harris. That being said, the Packers have to be smart with the ailing Harris in the weeks ahead, the same way they have been smart with wide receiver Greg Jennings and running back Vernand Morency. In just the first month of the season, Harris has played through at least three notable injuries – a hyper-extended elbow suffered Week One against the Eagles, back spasms for at least the last three weeks, and most recently a hand that was stepped on in last Sunday’s game against the Vikings. He has continued to play through all three injuries. Harris was limited in participation at Wednesday’s practice because of his back and has clearly played through some pain over the last couple of games. Though none of Harris’ injuries look like they will necessarily force him out of the lineup, the Packers should be proactive and consider sitting him for a game or two – if not this week against the Bears, then next week against the Redskins. With the bye week to follow the Redskins game, Harris should be in better condition for the long haul, something the Packers must keep in mind. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on Monday that Harris saw a back specialist recently who said his lingering issues should go away in two to three weeks. Harris was unavailable for comment on Wednesday. Based on Harris’ demeanor on the field the past couple of games, taking a couple of weeks off would probably help him recover. Harris, though, is a gamer and no doubt wants to play on Sunday night against the Bears in one of the biggest games at Lambeau Field in recent years. Because his injuries require more of a pain tolerance than they directly affect his performance, it would seem likely that he will suit up. He still has the health of his feet and legs, the biggest reasons he is one of the best cornerbacks in the league. Without Harris, the Packers would likely turn to nickel back Jarrett Bush or Will Blackmon to start. Bush has shown good energy, but was targeted by the Vikings for a couple of big plays. Blackmon is playing with a cast on his hand for a thumb injury. The Packers have high hopes for both players, though, either would be a major drop-off from Harris. All things considered, sitting Harris would be a tough decision for Mike McCarthy. Though the second-year head coach really relies on his medical staff to make such decisions, he has to realize that any lasting injuries to Harris could affect his team for more than just one or two games. To have Harris at or near 100% after the bye week by resting him is better than having him fight through the pain the entire year and risk compromising his long-term performance. A year ago, Jennings came back too early from an ankle injury and was never the same for the rest of the season. But when the wide receiver encountered a hamstring injury before this year’s season opener, the Packers took no chances. While he probably could have returned sooner, he sat out the first two games. When he returned, he made a game-winning touchdown catch against the Chargers and has been a valuable weapon on offense since. Morency similarly has been brought along slowly. He entered Day One of training camp as a starter until suffering a knee injury in the first practice. While he was initially expected to miss most of training camp, he has been limited into the regular season due to what McCarthy called “unresolved soreness.” Though Morency probably could have participated in some capacity over the first three games, he stayed on the inactive list. He made his first appearance of the season against the Vikings with the hope that he will be ready to go the remainder of the season at full strength. To say that Harris’ injury issues are related to Jennings’ and Morency’s would be unfair. Each injury varies in severity and has to be dealt with separately. Still, the big picture has to be the focus for McCarthy and the team’s medical staff. Because Harris’ back has been a persistent problem, it is not to be taken lightly. If time off will do Harris some good, then missing a game, even against the Bears, is the best decision for the team. Matt Tevsh is a frequent contributor to PackerReport.com and Packer Report magazine. E-mail him at matttevsh@hotmail.com.
Post #: 161
RE:The Packers - 10/5/2007 4:03:57 PM   
Cheesehead Craig


Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline
The problem with sitting Harris is the HUGE dropoff after him. Bush is way to green to be covering anyone but in a nickel situation and Blackmon broke his foot in practice on Wednesday (the day before this article was written, excellent research there :roll: ). So the Packers don't have enough depth right now to sit Harris for 2 games. I agree he needs rest, but a game against a division rival like the Bears is not the time to do it. I can see maybe the Washington game resting him as they don't have that imposing of a passing offense, especially if Santana Moss is injured.
Post #: 162
RE:The Packers - 10/5/2007 4:35:14 PM   
Lynn G.


Posts: 29290
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline
I agree Craig. There's no way Harris doesn't play on Sunday. It's not like the injury just happened - he's already been playing through it. This Sunday's game is just too important.
Post #: 163
RE:The Packers - 10/7/2007 4:31:37 PM   
Mark Anderson

 

Posts: 10090
Joined: 9/1/2007
Status: offline
What will the Over/Under line on Madden compliments for Favre tonite? I'm guessing about 40. There will be 10 "that's Favre just being Favre" comments. There will be 10 "he just loves to play the game" comments. There will be 10 "he's just a gunslinger" comments. There will be 10 "nobody makes that play but Favre" comments. He will also throw in about 5 "the receiver must have run the wrong route" comments.
Post #: 164
RE:The Packers - 10/8/2007 6:26:59 AM   
David Moufang

 

Posts: 1177
Joined: 7/29/2007
From: Columbia Crest
Status: offline
One of the sloppiest GB games I've seen in quite a while. Lots of blame to go around here, not the least of which to Brett Favre. Everyone keeps going on about Jones's fumbles, and although they were horrible, there is no way to prove that the Packers would have scored had he not fumbled. The Bears DIDN'T score recovering them, so that speculation isn't terribly useful. Favre's first INT was completely idiotic. It was VINTAGE Favre. It is exactly that kind of thoughtless play that has cost this team so many games over the years. The Bears smartly and quickly scored a touchdown -- on the very next play. They took full advantage of a giant miscue and deserve credit for it. After the half, the GB offense went into standby mode. The Bears weren't really much better, preferring to offer the game to GB, but we wouldn't take it. Run plays on 3rd & 6?! The first drive of the game notwithstanding, guess what!! We don't have a running game, so stop pretending otherwise!! Finally, the game's last drive was shockingly bad. With two minutes left, and only one timeout, the Packers proceeded to dink-and-dunk down the centre of the field. Madden and Michaels pretty much hit the nail on the head: there was no urgency on the part of Favre or the offense. Everyone looked very tired. They made no attempts to run a pass play and get out of bounds. The Bears' D required little effort to keep them on the field. The last play (INT) was a desperation play, something we haven't witnessed so far this season. A piss-poor game all-around. Overconfidence probably played a part. I don't want to say that McCarthy was "out-coached" in the second half as the Bears weren't doing great either, but he made some boneheaded play calls. Favre shoulders some blame for this loss too. Not being a sore loser, but the Bears definitely got some help from the referees. There were two very questionable calls in the first half: the penalty against GB on the weird line-up problem during the kick-off, and when the Bears CLEARLY had 12 men on the field before that snap. Those in addition to all the costly legit penalties, the Packers beat themselves in this game.
Post #: 165
RE:The Packers - 10/8/2007 6:36:50 AM   
djskillz


Posts: 56861
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
David, just want to ask; would you at least also admit that the Packers got major help from the officials last week? That certainly seemed to be the case.
Post #: 166
RE:The Packers - 10/8/2007 6:48:30 AM   
David Moufang

 

Posts: 1177
Joined: 7/29/2007
From: Columbia Crest
Status: offline
[quote="djskilbr"]David, just want to ask; would you at least also admit that the Packers got major help from the officials last week? That certainly seemed to be the case.[/quote] I remember there being contested penalties, but I don't remember the exact situations. It's probably easier to remember them when your team winds up on the losing side of them :) The Bears were helped by officials not being able to count to 12. That's inexcusable. It's not a judgment call -- it's right in front of their blind eyes.
Post #: 167
RE:The Packers - 10/8/2007 2:21:03 PM   
Cheesehead Craig


Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline
To single out Favre then completely exonerate Jones is wrong. The Packers had all the momentum and were steamrolling the Bears. His 2 fumbles cost the Packers points and the way the Packers were moving the ball, I don't think that saying they cost us 10 points is out of line. Not saying Favre's INT wasn't stupid or costly late in the game, but those fumbles were huge early on when this thing could have been put out of reach. The second half was a play-calling nightmare. McCarthy played to not lose. They did the same thing all night with the punts and kickoffs to keep it away from Hester, but they kept giving the Bears outstanding field position. The Packer penalties hurt them quite a bit in this regard as well as stupid special teams penalties kept them pinned back. I don't get into officiating, to me it's pointless. The officials make the calls they make, you deal with it and move on. The crew wasn't all that impressive last night from the way they handled the game, as they seemed confused several times and there were a lot of conferences on what the call was supposed to be. I don't like how they took away from the flow of the game. I think that having the backup center during the last drive really hurt as he didn't snap the ball all that quickly. Spitz held on to it for what 4-5 seconds each time? Gotta snap that thing and get moving. I agree on the sloppy play by the Pack. Hopefully MM learns from this as does the team and they can beat Washington next week.
Post #: 168
RE:The Packers - 10/8/2007 3:52:26 PM   
Tim Cady

 

Posts: 10549
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Wonderful World
Status: offline
Not being a sore loser, but the Bears definitely got some help from the referees. There were two very questionable calls in the first half: the penalty against GB on the weird line-up problem during the kick-off, and when the Bears CLEARLY had 12 men on the field before that snap. Those in addition to all the costly legit penalties, the Packers beat themselves in this game - David M. [quote="djskilbr"]David, just want to ask; would you at least also admit that the Packers got major help from the officials last week? That certainly seemed to be the case.[/quote] I agree with both of you. I think that the Bears got every call last night, compared to the Packers getting every call on the road last week against the Vikings. I have never seen the Pack get screwed like that in Lambeau. San Francisco maybe, but not in Lambeau, primetime, I wonder how that worked out for Vegas? I didn't want to see the Packers remain undefeated but I sure would like to see these games called right. For the Packers it is a was, they got a gift last week and screwed this week. I feel like the Bears were handed a division win, and we were robbed a division win. Smart money would say that the Vikings will get every break under the sun next week against the Bears. The only thing that makes this up in the air is a whiskey bottle from 30+ years ago. Are the refs ever going to get past that? Remember the Marty sway? You could see it with the Pack on the road against the Vikings - the reception fumble call where the ball was not a completion last week. This week the Pack has the same fumble, only in my mind more of a case for, the receiver not having control when he caught it being called a completion and fumble. Both cases the calls are too close to be reversed so the call on the field stands. Olsen would have never got his second foot down in the endzone in my opinion.
Post #: 169
RE:The Packers - 10/8/2007 4:13:05 PM   
John Childress


Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline
I think Washington will beat Green Bay. They have an excellent secondary that will shut down a lot of those crossing patterns.
Post #: 170
RE:The Packers - 10/8/2007 5:29:30 PM   
Lynn G.


Posts: 29290
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline
I don't fault Jones one bit for the fumble in which Tillman just punched the ball out of his hands. That was just a good defensive play. The other fumble was bad and it's going to eat at the confidence of that youngster.
Post #: 171
RE:The Packers - 10/8/2007 5:59:46 PM   
Cheesehead Craig


Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline
[quote="Lynn Garthwaite"]I don't fault Jones one bit for the fumble in which Tillman just punched the ball out of his hands. That was just a good defensive play. The other fumble was bad and it's going to eat at the confidence of that youngster.[/quote] Rookie mistakes, but he'll learn from them. I don't think the confidence will suffer much. It's not like he has the dropsies week in and out. It was one game and he'll bounce back. Plus I'm sure in practice and film he'll get worked over good to hammer the point home. He's still a damn fine rookie WR and he'll be a real good one over his career.
Post #: 172
RE:The Packers - 10/8/2007 6:05:17 PM   
Cheesehead Craig


Posts: 967
Joined: 7/30/2007
From: The Frozen Tundra
Status: offline
[quote="John Childress"]I think Washington will beat Green Bay. They have an excellent secondary that will shut down a lot of those crossing patterns.[/quote] Washington is a real interesting team this year. Campbell is finally showing some skills. The defense is quite good also. Should make for a good game.
Post #: 173
RE:The Packers - 10/8/2007 6:12:08 PM   
Lynn G.


Posts: 29290
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline
Does anyone remember this from last week:
quote:

Here’s one for the bulletin board at Winter Park: Packers coach Mike McCarty took a not-so-thinly veiled shot at Childress when asked about how he handles officials. During Sunday’s loss to the Packers, Childress complained repeatedly to referee Ed Hochuli and his crew about the Packers cornerbacks’ physical play. “Call the head guy over there 10 times in one game to complain about defensive pass (interference), that’s an approach,” McCarthy replied. “That’s not the one I take.”
"That's not the one I take." Until the very next week, apparently. Did anyone else have a good laugh when they see McCarthy bringing photos over to the ref after a questionable call (I think it was when the Packer guy lined up over the center on a field goal attempt?). It seems McCarthy's holier-than-thou attitude only applies when he is not on the losing end of a questionable call. Another one of those karma bugs. He got bit by that one.
Post #: 174
RE:The Packers - 10/8/2007 6:27:44 PM   
Guest
Last night was FUN!! Actually I had a hard time PICKING who I wanted to win. I can't stand B. Farvre, but I also can't stand my Bear Neighbor fans who will believe this victory will make them Super Bowl Champs. In the end, I was HAPPY to have the packers lose this one. B. Farvre looked like someone stole his brand new bicylce one day after Christmas. The WORST J. Madden comment of the night? With 2 minutes to go and a commrcial break about to start, "You've got Brett Farvre with 2 minutes at Lambeau." WoooooooooooooPeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeFreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeking Dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!! You have the packers losing to duh bears!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
  Post #: 175
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk >> RE:The Packers Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode