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  92 93 [94] 95 96   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 8:13:56 AM   
marty


Posts: 13049
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: online 		That 3rd string QB made some VERY good plays. He MIGHT be a young Tom Brady, and Chicago might have a QB controversy next year.

I was impressed with Caleb Hanie. He was really quick with the high snap, decisive and quick. But he did throw a bad pick at the end.

I think the Packers probably would have won without enormous help from the officials, but we'll never know.
Post #: 2326
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 8:14:38 AM   
John Childress


Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		Cutler didn't want to play, GB took his heart away

Collins couldn't play. He sucked in his prime.

The 3rd stringer at least wanted to be out there and tried his best.

But for the pass to Raji he might have pulled it off

I don't know how Cutler bounces back from this. He pulled a Roberto Duran in the championship. Just like how the Titans had to cut Young after his stunt I would cut Cutler

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!
Post #: 2327
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 8:18:50 AM   
Lynn G.


Posts: 33035
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		The one advantage a third string QB has is that the other team hasn't gameplanned for him.

But when you throw a ball DIRECTLY to a guy on defense, you're giving away the game. I'm not buying that he helped the Bears.

_____________________________

Put our country back in the hands of people who actually want to do things to help everyday citizens. Elect Democrats.
Post #: 2328
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 8:39:56 AM   
marty


Posts: 13049
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: online 		Yes the other team hasn't planned for the 3rd stringer, but I think it's easy, you blitz the crap out of them and they're unlikely to make a play. A 3rd stringer just hasn't worked with the starters very much, hasn't seen many defenses, and also hasn't seen much gametime - I think that more than offsets the other team not gameplanning for him.

I think Capers WAS a little bit scared of Hanie and didn't bring as much pressure because the kid was making plays, and was quick.

Hanie is likely to move up to 2nd string, and could well be the starter next year for the Bears.

You're right Lynn. Hanie helped the Bears temporarily, but ultimately he did them in with the 2 picks.
Post #: 2329
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 10:42:44 AM   
John Childress


Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		The Bears can't roll Cutler out there next year and give the fans any faith

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!
Post #: 2330
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 10:48:13 AM   
djskillz


Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline 		Lot of talk about that this morning; that there's going to be a massive MRI cover-up in Chicago.

They'll come out and proclaim that his knee was as messed up as Theisman's or something. They almost have to.

_____________________________

"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 #: 2331
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 10:57:57 AM   
Todd M

 

Posts: 40668
Joined: 7/14/2007
Status: offline 		So messed up yet he was riding the bike, standing around on it for extended periods of time. No brace/ice. 
Post #: 2332
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 10:59:54 AM   
djskillz


Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline 		Yep. They "say" it's a torn MCL. Still not enough, IMO.

Philip Rivers played with a torn ACL!

_____________________________

"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 #: 2333
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 11:09:23 AM   
David Levine


Posts: 77938
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

quote:

1st part; People keep bringing this up as if it hurt Chicago. It probably helped them in this game.


That third string QB threw two key interceptions that sealed the game for the Packers. How can you say it helped them?


He did throw 2 TD passes (even if one was incorrectly ruled out at the 1 yard line). And he was moving them for the possible tieing score before throwing the final pick.
Post #: 2334
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 11:11:33 AM   
Lynn G.


Posts: 33035
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		But in the end, a third string quarterback is going to make bad decisions. Like throwing a ball directly into the arms of BJ Raji. The guy didn't even have to move - it was as if Hainie MEANT to throw it to him. That was a gift to the Packers from a rough-around-the-edges QB.

_____________________________

Put our country back in the hands of people who actually want to do things to help everyday citizens. Elect Democrats.
Post #: 2335
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 11:12:08 AM   
David Levine


Posts: 77938
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

Hanie is likely to move up to 2nd string, and could well be the starter next year for the Bears.



A better coach would have had him at 2nd string all year. Todd Collins has attempted less than 200 passes total the past 13 years.
Post #: 2336
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 11:14:57 AM   
David Levine


Posts: 77938
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lynn G.

But in the end, a third string quarterback is going to make bad decisions. Like throwing a ball directly into the arms of BJ Raji. The guy didn't even have to move - it was as if Hainie MEANT to throw it to him. That was a gift to the Packers from a rough-around-the-edges QB.


How is that different than Rodgers throwing a ball directly into the arms of Brian Urlacher?

Jay Cutler and Todd Collins combined to lead the Bears to zero points. Hainie led them to 14.

To me, it looks like Hanie was the only QB to give them a chance.
Post #: 2337
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 11:19:13 AM   
djskillz


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

Jay Cutler isn't exactly known for his decision-making...

_____________________________

"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 #: 2338
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 11:19:55 AM   
David Levine


Posts: 77938
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Las Vegas
Status: offline 		Cutler: 6/14, 80 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT.
Collins: 0/4
Hanie: 13/20, 153 yards, 1 TD, 2 INTs. (And Chester Taylor got credit for the 1 yard run after the officials ruled the WR out at the 1 yard line even though it was a clear TD).
Post #: 2339
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 11:51:08 AM   
John Childress


Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		THat is why I didn't get the jackass booth announcers after the game railing on Lovie Smith for putting Haine in in the 3rd quarter so he couldn't bring the other two stiffs back

WHO CARES!

If Hanie couldn't do it then try Hester and run the wildcat or something.

You clearly were not winning stiffs 1 and 2

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!
Post #: 2340
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 1:10:20 PM   
Trekgeekscott


Posts: 39278
Joined: 7/16/2007
From: United Federation of Planets
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

THat is why I didn't get the jackass booth announcers after the game railing on Lovie Smith for putting Haine in in the 3rd quarter so he couldn't bring the other two stiffs back

WHO CARES!

If Hanie couldn't do it then try Hester and run the wildcat or something.

You clearly were not winning stiffs 1 and 2


Hanie did more in his limited time in the game than the other two stiffs did the rest of the game.    It was a good decision...just not enough to win the game.


_____________________________

“There is no hate like Christian love.”
Post #: 2341
RE: The Packers - 1/24/2011 3:14:37 PM   
John Childress


Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		Sadly, I must admit as a Cutler backer, if the Bears never made that trade and had Orton yesterday they might have won

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!
Post #: 2342
RE: The Packers - 1/25/2011 9:25:08 PM   
marty


Posts: 13049
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: online 		I think the Packers are likely to win this one, as from the Falcons' game, it seems they have lots of team speed, and do well on turf. However, like the Bears, the Steelers are a tough, physical team (except for Cutler), that COULD give the Packers trouble, like the Bears' defense did in the 4th quarter. I do NOT think Rodgers will come through if his team is behind in the 4th quarter, he usually doesn't. But I also think Big Ben will NOT come through either, because he did against them last year, so this time I think the Pack will stop him.

I think whomever has the lead with about 5 minutes left in the game is likely to be the SB winner. I think the Packers COULD blow the Steelers out, but I do NOT think the Steelers will blowout the Pack (though I would LOVE to see that!).
Post #: 2343
RE: The Packers - 1/27/2011 11:12:44 AM   
jinxi

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 1/20/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: marty

I think the Packers , as from the Falcons' game, it seems they have lots of team speed, and do well on turf. However, like the Bears, the Steelers are a tough, physical team (except for Cutler), that COULD give the Packers trouble, like the Bears' defense did in the 4th quarter. I do NOT think Rodgers will come through if his team is behind in the 4th quarter, he usually doesn't. But I also think Big Ben will NOT come through either, because he did against them last year, so this time I think the Pack will stop him.

I think whomever has the lead with about 5 minutes left in the game is likely to be the SB winner. I think the Packers COULD blow the Steelers out, but I do NOT think the Steelers will blowout the Pack (though I would LOVE to see that!).


arenot likely to win,Packers must win this game.go go go.
___________________________________________________________________
retail jerseys,nfl wholesale jersey
Post #: 2344
RE: The Packers - 1/27/2011 11:15:56 AM   
Lynn G.


Posts: 33035
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		Why MUST they win the game jinxi? Is someone's life on the line? Do you have a lot of money riding on the outcome? I say stop stop stop.

_____________________________

Put our country back in the hands of people who actually want to do things to help everyday citizens. Elect Democrats.
Post #: 2345
RE: The Packers - 1/28/2011 8:21:33 AM   
marty


Posts: 13049
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: online 		Losing the Super Bowl seems to have an effect on teams, seems moreso recently.

I can't recall offhand, a SB loser that came back to the SB in the last 15 years.

What is the last team to have lost a SB, and then came back and won within 4 years of losing it ?
Post #: 2346
RE: The Packers - 1/28/2011 8:32:05 AM   
John Childress


Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		Giants lost in 2000, won in 2007
Pats lost in 1996, won in 2001

But the last one to meet Marty's guideline is the Cowboys who lost in 75 to the Steelers and won in 77

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!
Post #: 2347
RE: The Packers - 1/28/2011 8:06:39 PM   
marty


Posts: 13049
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: online 		Thanks JC.

Pretty close with the Pats. I don't why I picked 4 years, it could just as well have been 5. After so many years, it's almost a different group of guys.

It does go to show that, perhaps, it is hard for teams that lost the SB, to come back and win one. I wonder if teams that lost in the NFC or AFC Championship games fare better than teams that lost in the SB, as far as winning it all in the next 5 years ????

I wonder how that has played out in, say, the last 15 years ?
Post #: 2348
RE: The Packers - 2/1/2011 12:46:34 AM   
Jon Thomas


Posts: 687
Joined: 2/4/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Childress

The Packers are the best in the NFC this year, possibly the NFL

Then they get Barnett, Finley, and Grant back next year!

Could be a long season for the purple


Hello John... I enjoy your take on a lot of the teams (like above) because you're willing to be open minded even though it goes against your fandom.   Did you see Peter King's MMQB today? 

He quoted an article by Bob McGinn from Milwaukee... here's that portion of the article...

I think you were spot on above, regardless what we might like to think...



***


If Bob McGinn's high on the future of these Packers, then we all should be.


There is no local beat man I respect more than Bob McGinn of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. He never falls in love with the Packers when the rest of the world does, and he's always suitably skeptical about the locals. Wish I could think of a few examples, but I'm always impressed with a local beat person who can be exhaustively good and thorough -- two traits McGinn shows consistently -- while resisting the temptation, even in the best of times, to pump up the team. But when he likes something, he won't hesitate to write it. And I don't recall him ever being as high on a Packers team as he is now, and I mean high about the long-term future.


A few excerpts from a column he wrote for the Journal-Sentinel over the weekend:


"One of the most annoying remarks in sports is when a coach or a player for some down-in-the-mouth team says his goal is to win championships. If any player, coach or scout for the current Packers failed to use the plural case to state his objective, he would be guilty of grossly underselling the capability of what has been built in Green Bay or not telling the truth. I'm spending my first non-football weekend in what seems like forever trying to make sense of a team whose future appears brighter than at any time since the Lombardi era. Get ready, Wisconsin. You ain't seen nothing yet. Think about the 68 players (69 with Johnny Jolly) under contract to the Packers. Consider the coaching, the personnel department, management, financial resources, facilities and fan support. In all areas, Green Bay basically is as good as it gets right now ...


"Look at the overwhelming strengths of this team. The only thing that can stop [quarterback Aaron] Rodgers would be concussions or major injury. Jermichael Finley, 23, will be back wanting his piece of the action, and coupled with three ace wideouts in their mid-20s and perhaps venerable Donald Driver the Packers will have almost an embarrassment of receiving riches.


"Bryan Bulaga, just 21, didn't play a terrible game all season and should do nothing but get better. Josh Sitton, 24, is a robust, high-caliber guard. Center Scott Wells does the job, too. The 24-year-old [Clay] Matthews played hurt most of the year yet still was exceptional. Desmond Bishop is entrenched inside, but either Nick Barnett or A.J. Hawk will have to go because neither deserves to sit and neither has the height or weight to play right outside in a 3-4. Tramon Williams ... played at a Pro Bowl level, and Sam Shields is able to outrun many of his mistakes and improve dramatically as the nickel back. Nick Collins plays safety as well as anyone in the NFC. Nick Barnett will return. Old pro Charles Woodson will fit somewhere. Tim Masthay has a chance to become the Packers' best punter since Craig Hentrich ...


"They will average 26.2 years per man and 27.4 years per starter on Super Sunday ... Unless Thompson should retire prematurely, the Packers should have him finding the players, Mike McCarthy coaching them and Rodgers leading a formidable roster for years to come. Late last February, a personnel man for one of the four playoff semifinalists walked up to Thompson and told him that after careful study he had evaluated the Packers as the best team in the 2009 playoff field. Arizona and Kurt Warner extinguished the Packers' chances 12 months ago. The worthy Steelers could do the same thing next Sunday. No matter what happens, the Packers will not be going away ...


"So think Super Bowls, and think championships ... Nothing should be beyond the realm of possibility for what the Packers have assembled.''


***

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/peter_king/01/30/super-bowl-week/index.html#ixzz1CfLEB5dx
Post #: 2349
RE: The Packers - 2/1/2011 7:01:47 AM   
John Childress


Posts: 42898
Joined: 7/15/2007
Status: offline 		Hey Jon - THANKS

That summed up just how I felt. I was just getting ready to write this also:

"The only thing that can stop [quarterback Aaron] Rodgers would be concussions or major injury"

That is it. Keep Rodgers away from concussions and this team will win multiple SBs

Their team is most built from the draft with only a few key free agent acquisitions.

That is also why I didn't like the Frazier hire. To me, that signaled that the team was going to try to reload and it really needs to rebuild. The Vikings are a much older, and less talented team than the Packers. Without a QB, reload didn't make sense. Look at how many starters we have on the wrong side of 30:

Berrian
Shiancoe
Herrera
Hutchinson
McKinnie
Williams
Williams
Henderson
Leber
Winfield

This team needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up with 2 years before we can compete

_____________________________

No more acceptance of mediocrity!!!! EVER!
Post #: 2350
Page:   <<   < prev  92 93 [94] 95 96   next >   >>
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> General NFL Talk >> RE: The Packers Page: <<   < prev  92 93 [94] 95 96   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