Green Bay Coach and GM

[FeelingMN 273]

Never rapped on and on about GB offense either. But when a Minny fan jumps on a GB post and make a point of slamming GB schedule and seems to forget the Minny's is just as weak, I felt the need to point out your idiocy. So as much as GB is a product of thier schedule, so is Minny. What didn't make sense, the fact that Minny schedule is on par with GB's? The fact that you glossed over it? The fact that Favre stats have come against the same mediocre opponents?

 

And my post maybe useless, but no more than yours.

 

Do you too subscribe to the mindless board banter touted by don? Are you not only a member, but also the president?

 

For the 80th time. Minny and GB have virtually identical schedules. They are easy schedules. Both could be products of those schedules. But the only reason this was brought up was in response to don's claim that Green Bay is so much better now than they were earlier in the season. Are they really better? Or have they beaten up on weak offenses and bad teams? That's a legitimate argument. And the only thing you can come up with is...but...but...but Miinnesota has an easy schedule too.

 

If I were to say, Minnesota is the best team in the league, and you replied with, "who have they really beaten", I'd agree with you....I wouldn't try to argue that Green Bay hasn't really done much either against the good teams on their schedule.

 

Seriously, why do you keep bringing this up? Although factually correct, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand....just like saying if Favre was really as good as he was made out to be, wouldn't he have more SB wins than Trent Dilfer?

 

Do you drool alot?

[FeelingMN 273]

That is a tremendous strawman that you keep building up and demolishing

 

Nobody says that or has said anything about a Packer dynasty....

the point -- that you've failed to argue at all -- is that the Packers are getting better....

 

It's obvious to everybody that they are and it makes sense because they are a very young team with a brand-new defensive scheme....

Stomping the Cowboys and the Ravens > barely squeaking by the Bears and losing to Tampa Bay

Giving up 2 sacks a game > giving up 12 sacks a game

#1 defense > #20 defense

a healthy and productive JerMichael Finley > no JerMichael Finley

 

and on and on....

It all seems so obvious to everyone else, but you are a little dimmer than even your average Sweetness/SwampDog.....

Does this all mean that the Packers getting better mean they will win the next 14 Super Bowls in a row?.... well, no... but that's a strawman that only you could think of....

 

I was looking for the number 11 and the number 175 and the word 'better' by them....I didn't see it...I wonder why.

 

Whatever. You count Lombardi Trophies before you go to bed each night. Not just the three you've won, but the many more you'll win in the future. All Pucker fans do this....after shotgunning a sixer of Blatz. Face it, with all the talk of a young team...and building for the future...are you really envisioning a Philadelphia Eagle type run in the 2000s? The Bills of the 90s? Or maybe the more recent Seattle Seahawks where you were good enough to get into the playoffs, but were never a serious threat to contend for a SB. Really? This is what has you so excited? It's ok....you're a homer....just admit to it....the Packers will win multiple SBs in the next decade....that's what teams with MVP caliber QBs and young defenses and skilled offensive playmakers do.....well, should do if they didn't have Lloyd and Harry running the team.

[joelmrut 4]

Do you too subscribe to the mindless board banter touted by don? Are you not only a member, but also the president?

 

For the 80th time. Minny and GB have virtually identical schedules. They are easy schedules. Both could be products of those schedules. But the only reason this was brought up was in response to don's claim that Green Bay is so much better now than they were earlier in the season. Are they really better? Or have they beaten up on weak offenses and bad teams? That's a legitimate argument. And the only thing you can come up with is...but...but...but Miinnesota has an easy schedule too.

 

If I were to say, Minnesota is the best team in the league, and you replied with, "who have they really beaten", I'd agree with you....I wouldn't try to argue that Green Bay hasn't really done much either against the good teams on their schedule.

 

Seriously, why do you keep bringing this up? Although factually correct, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand....just like saying if Favre was really as good as he was made out to be, wouldn't he have more SB wins than Trent Dilfer?

 

So the only reason GB has played better is schedule?

 

 

Do you drool alot?

 

Nice, what are you two? Why not just call me names, that will help you win arguements and prove your manhood.

[Phurfur 70]

I was looking for the number 11 and the number 175 and the word 'better' by them....I didn't see it...I wonder why.

 

Whatever. You count Lombardi Trophies before you go to bed each night. Not just the three you've won, but the many more you'll win in the future. All Pucker fans do this....after shotgunning a sixer of Blatz. Face it, with all the talk of a young team...and building for the future...are you really envisioning a Philadelphia Eagle type run in the 2000s? The Bills of the 90s? Or maybe the more recent Seattle Seahawks where you were good enough to get into the playoffs, but were never a serious threat to contend for a SB. Really? This is what has you so excited? It's ok....you're a homer....just admit to it....the Packers will win multiple SBs in the next decade....that's what teams with MVP caliber QBs and young defenses and skilled offensive playmakers do.....well, should do if they didn't have Lloyd and Harry running the team.

 

When Dallas won their 1st SB of the 90's they were the youngest team in the NFL. HTH

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

When Dallas won their 1st SB of the 90's they were the youngest team in the NFL. HTH

they also had a hof qb on their team...........something the pack used to have until they ran favre out of town. cant win without a qb team leader and rodgers is stat guy never done much except throw garbage time tds and run up stats.

[FeelingMN 273]

So the only reason GB has played better is schedule?

Nice, what are you two? Why not just call me names, that will help you win arguements and prove your manhood.

 

The only reason? No. But one of the reasons...yet the Pucker homers refuse to admit it. Why not just say, yeah we played some cupcakes, and we beat the crap out of them. That's what Vikings fans have been saying. Why should anyone apologize for winning? But see, that's not good enough for ol' don...he wants the Packers to be better than before....he wants them to be the team that shakes things up in the playoffs.....he wants them to affirm what he's been saying about them for the last 6 months....and when they lose, he can say they're building for next year. It's a no lose proposition.

 

And you're offended because I asked if you drool? Seriously? Dude, everyone drools. When I have a bad head cold and can't breathe very well, I drool.

 

When Dallas won their 1st SB of the 90's they were the youngest team in the NFL. HTH

 

 

They also had a dominant O-line, several HOFers, and a great coach. Care to draw any further allusions between the two squads?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Yeah, the Packers are 'better' now than they were then. Playing three games at home (DAL, SF, BAL) and two on the road (TB, DET). Man, look at all those playoff caliber teams. Look at those offensive juggernauts. If they're better, they'll beat Arizona and/or Pittsburgh on the road. Hell, even Oakland can beat Pittsburgh at Heinz, so the Pack shouldn't have a problem. And Arizona might not be playing for much week 17...so the Pack should beat them too. If they're better now, they'll finish 12-4....and will avoid being one and done in the playoffs.

 

We'll see.

Idiocy exposed.

 

Funny how Vikings fans were puffing their chests about beating SF and Baltimore at home. Needing a miracle play to beat SF and a missed FG by a kicker who is now unemployed to beat Baltimore.

GB does it and it means nothing.

 

If you don't think GB is playing better lately, you really are blind and need help.

 

Yes, you sure did expose you idiocy.

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

The only reason? No. But one of the reasons...yet the Pucker homers refuse to admit it. Why not just say, yeah we played some cupcakes, and we beat the crap out of them. That's what Vikings fans have been saying. Why should anyone apologize for winning? But see, that's not good enough for ol' don...he wants the Packers to be better than before....he wants them to be the team that shakes things up in the playoffs.....he wants them to affirm what he's been saying about them for the last 6 months....and when they lose, he can say they're building for next year. It's a no lose proposition.

 

And you're offended because I asked if you drool? Seriously? Dude, everyone drools. When I have a bad head cold and can't breathe very well, I drool.

 

They also had a dominant O-line, several HOFers, and a great coach. Care to draw any further allusions between the two squads?

is he saying the pack will win the superbowl simply because they are young? wow.......... how many HOfer are currently on the pack squad? I knew jimmy johnson and McCarthy is no jimmy. jimmy won at the college and pro level several times......mccarthy alienated the only HOf the packers had on their team

[FeelingMN 273]

Yes, you sure did expose you idiocy.

 

 

Amazing.

 

Since the Vikings game, the Puckers have played TB, DAL, SF, BAL, DET. Care to guess how these teams rank in total offense/defense?

 

Tampa is 27th in offense/26th in defense

Dallas 3rd/14th

SF 28th/20th

DET 26th/30th

BAL 15th/10th

 

On average, they've played the 19.8th best offense in football and the 20th best defense since playing the Vikings last. Is it really saying much that they're playing better lately? I mean, when you're going up against a team, on average, that's in the bottom third of the league, how can you not improve?

 

Fine, you're in the middle of the pack of the NFL. You'll probably make the playoffs. But you're one and done.

 

As don likes to say...better luck next year.

 

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

 

Amazing.

 

Since the Vikings game, the Puckers have played TB, DAL, SF, BAL, DET. Care to guess how these teams rank in total offense/defense?

 

Tampa is 27th in offense/26th in defense

Dallas 3rd/14th

SF 28th/20th

DET 26th/30th

BAL 15th/10th

 

On average, they've played the 19.8th best offense in football and the 20th best defense since playing the Vikings last. Is it really saying much that they're playing better lately? I mean, when you're going up against a team, on average, that's in the bottom third of the league, how can you not improve?

 

Fine, you're in the middle of the pack of the NFL. You'll probably make the playoffs. But you're one and done.

 

As don likes to say...better luck next year.

 

 

[Sho Nuff 720]

 

Amazing.

 

Since the Vikings game, the Puckers have played TB, DAL, SF, BAL, DET. Care to guess how these teams rank in total offense/defense?

 

Tampa is 27th in offense/26th in defense

Dallas 3rd/14th

SF 28th/20th

DET 26th/30th

BAL 15th/10th

 

On average, they've played the 19.8th best offense in football and the 20th best defense since playing the Vikings last. Is it really saying much that they're playing better lately? I mean, when you're going up against a team, on average, that's in the bottom third of the league, how can you not improve?

 

Fine, you're in the middle of the pack of the NFL. You'll probably make the playoffs. But you're one and done.

 

As don likes to say...better luck next year.

 

 

Prior to that, they had played Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis as well...yet, somehow they were looking better against teams that are better than those guys.

 

Just watch the actual games.

 

Capers is calling a more aggressive game than he was earlier in the year as the team was new with the 3-4.

McCarthy is calling a shorter passing game, but will take shots downfield. And when they go downfield the protection is better.

Some would say because Clifton is healthier and Tauscher is in there instead of Allen freaking Barbre.

But keep proving how foolish you are.

 

Middle of the pack in the NFL. I don't think you will find one analyst that is impartial that would agree with that.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Whats funny and predictable...is most of you are the same types that were whining that the Packers sucked and had not played anyone.

Said Dallas would kill them...they destroy Dallas and the excuses fly.

Said the 9ers were better and would kill them...pretty much beat them down for most of that game...excuses fly.

And I predicted this on another board...people would say how the Ravens would beat them blah blah blah...they win, and excuses are made how the Ravens are not that good.

Same will happen with Pitt, Arizona...and so on if GB wins those games.

[FeelingMN 273]

Prior to that, they had played Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis as well...yet, somehow they were looking better against teams that are better than those guys.

 

Just watch the actual games.

 

Capers is calling a more aggressive game than he was earlier in the year as the team was new with the 3-4.

McCarthy is calling a shorter passing game, but will take shots downfield. And when they go downfield the protection is better.

Some would say because Clifton is healthier and Tauscher is in there instead of Allen freaking Barbre.

But keep proving how foolish you are.

 

Middle of the pack in the NFL. I don't think you will find one analyst that is impartial that would agree with that.

 

I watched the DET/Dallas/TB/BAL games.

 

The defense played outstanding in the DAL game.

 

NO/IND/MIN/ARI/PHI/SD/CIN are all clearly better than the Puckers. Arguments could be made for DAL/NYG/DEN/PIT/NE. Green Bay is somewhere in this second group....meaning they're anywhere from 8th to 13th in the league.

 

Still, the Packers are not better than they were 2 months ago. You don't lose talents like Harris and Kampman and magically get better. Sooner or later, this team will get exposed. Tramon Williams will make sure of that.

 

The Pack are peaking at the wrong time. One and done son.

 

Whats funny and predictable...is most of you are the same types that were whining that the Packers sucked and had not played anyone.

Said Dallas would kill them...they destroy Dallas and the excuses fly.

Said the 9ers were better and would kill them...pretty much beat them down for most of that game...excuses fly.

And I predicted this on another board...people would say how the Ravens would beat them blah blah blah...they win, and excuses are made how the Ravens are not that good.

Same will happen with Pitt, Arizona...and so on if GB wins those games.

 

Don't get defensive man. I've never once said the Packers sucked. I've said here, and in other threads that Rodgers was a good pick, that GB has one of the best, young, potent offenses in the league. I rarely ever make predictions on games, because well, I've seen enough games to know anything can happen, and often those surest on Saturday look the most foolish on Monday.

 

Still, talk about predictable....criticize the Packers about anything....absolutely anything....and both you and don get all kinds of worked up over it. That's what I love. You guys bleed green and gold and yet, simply are incapable of talking real footbal when it comes to the Pack.

[Sho Nuff 720]

The Pack are peaking at the wrong time?

Yeah, I hate when my favorite team peaks at the end of the year.

 

As for somewhere between 8-13...there are 32 teams in the league...teams 8-13 are not middle of the pack genius.

 

And losing Kampman has not been an issue and yes, may have made them better. They can unleash Clay Matthews more not worrying as much about Jones in coverage as they did with Kampman in coverage.

Yes, losing Harris hurts some...he likely would not have had the PI calls the other night (they would have been illegal contact and the WR would have never gotten off of the line).

Tramon was rough then...but overall has been solid, but still learning the last 2 years.

 

And despite your continued denial, yes, GB has been playing better the last several games.

 

And Im fine when people criticize the Packers for things that are logical and actually wrong with the team.

Criticize Tramon for that game, he deserves it.

Criticize Hawk for his play earlier in the year. Criticize Daryn Colledge, criticize Allen Barbre...but when you are forced to basically make things up to argue, that is where I jump in pretty strong. There are legit criticisms of this team out there...you have posted some of the more ridiculous crap and its obvious when the only one you can get to back you up is freaking pimp's alias.

[joelmrut 4]

cant win without a qb team leader and rodgers is stat guy never done much except throw garbage time tds and run up stats.

 

In his year and a half as a starter we already know what he is going to become?

 

Sounds more like you are describing Favre than Rodgers. How many games was GB up when Rodgers was accumulating all those garbage time stats? How many games were the Viking up when they continued to throw?

 

At this point in his career, Rodgers is putting up better stats than Favre did in his 1st 2 seasons as a starter, except Rodger has the edge in yards, TD and threw fewer int.

 

Rodgers>Farve

7437yds>6530

53tds>37

20ints>37

 

In the last 2 seasons, Rodgers has outpreformed him too.

 

Rodgers>Farve

7437yds>6621

53tds>48

20ints>27

 

 

So lets not give the guy a chance to prove himself and call it a mistake to draft him? Please!

[donhaas 18]

 

Amazing.

 

Since the Vikings game, the Puckers have played TB, DAL, SF, BAL, DET. Care to guess how these teams rank in total offense/defense?

 

Tampa is 27th in offense/26th in defense

Dallas 3rd/14th

SF 28th/20th

DET 26th/30th

BAL 15th/10th

 

On average, they've played the 19.8th best offense in football and the 20th best defense since playing the Vikings last. Is it really saying much that they're playing better lately? I mean, when you're going up against a team, on average, that's in the bottom third of the league, how can you not improve?

 

Fine, you're in the middle of the pack of the NFL. You'll probably make the playoffs. But you're one and done.

 

As don likes to say...better luck next year.

 

 

I think it's very clear that GB started to play better AFTER the TB game.... Why are they included in the winning streak stretch when they lost that game???

 

(To skew your numbers, I know)....

 

 

The Packers are definitely playing better (for a number of reasons) since the last Viking game.... They played even worse in the TB game....

 

 

Quit being purposely dumb

 

 

If you don't think the Packers are playing better now -- dominated Balt (minn. was lucky to win) dominated the Cowboys, beat SF (Minn. needed a miracle to win at home) etc. -- then they were when they lost to the Vikes and TB earlier in the season.... then we'll just have to agree to disagree....

 

 

If you can't see the o-line has gotten healthy (and much better), the defense has gotten much better, and Jermichael Finley is back and a monster..... Not to mention BJ Raji getting much better, Matthews, Hawk, Barnett, etc.....

 

.....there's not much I can do for you

 

 

 

But it's from the same fanbase that has said Brett Favre sucks for 16 years and are now sucking his 40-year-old schlong every chance they get....

 

 

Nothing you say can be taken seriously

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

I think it's very clear that GB started to play better AFTER the TB game.... Why are they included in the winning streak stretch when they lost that game???

 

(To skew your numbers, I know)....

The Packers are definitely playing better (for a number of reasons) since the last Viking game.... They played even worse in the TB game....

Quit being purposely dumb

If you don't think the Packers are playing better now -- dominated Balt (minn. was lucky to win) dominated the Cowboys, beat SF (Minn. needed a miracle to win at home) etc. -- then they were when they lost to the Vikes and TB earlier in the season.... then we'll just have to agree to disagree....

If you can't see the o-line has gotten healthy (and much better), the defense has gotten much better, and Jermichael Finley is back and a monster..... Not to mention BJ Raji getting much better, Matthews, Hawk, Barnett, etc.....

 

.....there's not much I can do for you

But it's from the same fanbase that has said Brett Favre sucks for 16 years and are now sucking his 40-year-old schlong every chance they get....

Nothing you say can be taken seriously

you didnt dominate dallas....that game was close....and I might add you won twice against the lions, once against the browns and were the only team to lose to the bucs. three cupcake wins that I think the rams or seahawks could win ........

[joelmrut 4]

you didnt dominate dallas....that game was close....and I might add you won twice against the lions, once against the browns and were the only team to lose to the bucs. three cupcake wins that I think the rams or seahawks could win ........

or the Vikings.

[FeelingMN 273]

When they played Minn. they clearly weren't as good as they are now..... especially on defense....

 

I think it's very clear that GB started to play better AFTER the TB game.... Why are they included in the winning streak stretch when they lost that game???

 

(To skew your numbers, I know)....

 

The Packers are definitely playing better (for a number of reasons) since the last Viking game

 

Hmm....I guess the reason I included the Bucs game is because it was the first game after the Vikings game. If you want to say the Pack are playing better since their last loss, then say that. Don't say they're playing better since the Vikings loss, then accuse me of skewing numbers when all I'm doing is including stats within the parameters you have already set.

 

Seriously, I keep laughing when I read over your post. It's clear that the Packers started playing better after the TB game (which was after the Viking game) but the Packers are definitely playing better....for a number of reasons...since the last Vikings game.

 

[donhaas 18]

you didnt dominate dallas....that game was close....

 

The Packers completely dominated your Dallas Lions, Pimp... Completely shut down the running game.... completely shut down Romo.... They dominated them so much that they had Romo in there with 20 seconds left (when he long should have been safely on the bench) just to pad his sad numbers and score one last meaningless touchdown.....

 

Packers > about 10 teams > your Dallas Lions

[donhaas 18]

Hmm....I guess the reason I included the Bucs game is because it was the first game after the Vikings game. If you want to say the Pack are playing better since their last loss, then say that. Don't say they're playing better since the Vikings loss, then accuse me of skewing numbers when all I'm doing is including stats within the parameters you have already set.

 

Seriously, I keep laughing when I read over your post. It's clear that the Packers started playing better after the TB game (which was after the Viking game) but the Packers are definitely playing better....for a number of reasons...since the last Vikings game.

 

 

 

The Packers are playing much better now then they were during the Viking game

The Packers are clearly playing much better now then they were during their horrific loss to winless Tampa Bay.....

 

The Packers obviously did not start playing well the immediate second the Viking game ended.... but for a number of detailed reasons ...are playing much better since that last Viking game (Which was 5 weeks ago).

 

 

I think we are talking about the VIkings (and not the Bucs) because you are a VIkings fan.....

 

 

You follow football... stop being so purposely dumb....

[Sho Nuff 720]

you didnt dominate dallas....that game was close....and I might add you won twice against the lions, once against the browns and were the only team to lose to the bucs. three cupcake wins that I think the rams or seahawks could win ........

 

The game against Dallas was close?

They did not dominate them?

It was close at halftime...but Dallas did not even score til there were 38 seconds left in the game.

They were completely dominated.

[FeelingMN 273]

The Pack are peaking at the wrong time?

Yeah, I hate when my favorite team peaks at the end of the year.

 

As for somewhere between 8-13...there are 32 teams in the league...teams 8-13 are not middle of the pack genius.

 

And losing Kampman has not been an issue and yes, may have made them better. They can unleash Clay Matthews more not worrying as much about Jones in coverage as they did with Kampman in coverage.

Yes, losing Harris hurts some...he likely would not have had the PI calls the other night (they would have been illegal contact and the WR would have never gotten off of the line).

Tramon was rough then...but overall has been solid, but still learning the last 2 years.

 

And despite your continued denial, yes, GB has been playing better the last several games.

 

And Im fine when people criticize the Packers for things that are logical and actually wrong with the team.

Criticize Tramon for that game, he deserves it.

Criticize Hawk for his play earlier in the year. Criticize Daryn Colledge, criticize Allen Barbre...but when you are forced to basically make things up to argue, that is where I jump in pretty strong. There are legit criticisms of this team out there...you have posted some of the more ridiculous crap and its obvious when the only one you can get to back you up is freaking pimp's alias.

 

 

Packers > about 10 teams > your Dallas Lions

 

Apparently fellow Packer backer don thinks Green Bay is somewhere around 20....so perhaps I was being a bit generous with my ranking.

 

 

Explain to me how I've posted some of the more ridiculous crap with regard to the Packers? Because I've said that they've benefited from a friendly schedule? Didn't you say as much in the MVP thread?

 

I've given GB credit...and I think they're a good team...I just think they're not as good as you think they are....and because of that, you jump in pretty strong?

 

Holy Christ, are you serious? Jump in strong....because I posted the offensive/defensive rankings of the Pack's opponents since the last Vikings game....just like don told me to do. Just because I thought TT would have been better served to discuss trades with the Vikings for Favre? Because Rodgers has had one drive in his career....a 50 yard bomb to Jennings.....on a blown coverage....where he led the Packers to victory. If I've made anything up, I'm sure you'll find it and bring it to my attention.

 

Jump in pretty strong.......

[FeelingMN 273]

The Packers are playing much better now then they were during the Viking game

The Packers are clearly playing much better now then they were during their horrific loss to winless Tampa Bay.....

 

The Packers obviously did not start playing well the immediate second the Viking game ended.... but for a number of detailed reasons ...are playing much better since that last Viking game (Which was 5 weeks ago).

I think we are talking about the VIkings (and not the Bucs) because you are a VIkings fan.....

You follow football... stop being so purposely dumb....

 

 

If anything, you could argue they've played better the immediate second the Buc game ended...since they haven't lost since then. For whatever reason, you continue to use the Viking game as some benchmark for the season. You say this is because I'm a Vikings fan, but I think we know the real reason.....and this 20 page thread is a testament to that reason.

 

And you say the Packers are playing better for a number of detailed reasons....all I've said is that one of those reasons is a friendly schedule. Seriously, how can you dispute that?

[Sho Nuff 720]

Apparently fellow Packer backer don thinks Green Bay is somewhere around 20....so perhaps I was being a bit generous with my ranking.

 

 

Explain to me how I've posted some of the more ridiculous crap with regard to the Packers? Because I've said that they've benefited from a friendly schedule? Didn't you say as much in the MVP thread?

 

I've given GB credit...and I think they're a good team...I just think they're not as good as you think they are....and because of that, you jump in pretty strong?

 

Holy Christ, are you serious? Jump in strong....because I posted the offensive/defensive rankings of the Pack's opponents since the last Vikings game....just like don told me to do. Just because I thought TT would have been better served to discuss trades with the Vikings for Favre? Because Rodgers has had one drive in his career....a 50 yard bomb to Jennings.....on a blown coverage....where he led the Packers to victory. If I've made anything up, I'm sure you'll find it and bring it to my attention.

 

Jump in pretty strong.......

 

Pretty terrible at logic are you.

He is saying there are 10 teams between GB and Dallas. Not that they are only better than 10 teams and Dallas.

 

Not sure how explaining it to you would help...you are beyond hope.

I never claimed they did not benefit from a friendly schedule overall. You tried claiming they are not any better than they were 6 weeks ago or so because of the schedule...that is the ridiculous part.

 

I think they are? I think they are a solid team...probably around #7-8 in the league...finish about 10-6.

Which is a far cry from what I thought of them when they were 4-4 and playing like crap and there was no sign of this defense like this or the short passing game.

 

Rodgers has one drive in his career that led them to victory? So the other 7 wins this year had nothing to do with any drives he had?

 

You are seriously approaching pimp status here for how foolish you are being.

[FeelingMN 273]

Pretty terrible at logic are you.

He is saying there are 10 teams between GB and Dallas. Not that they are only better than 10 teams and Dallas.

 

Not sure how explaining it to you would help...you are beyond hope.

I never claimed they did not benefit from a friendly schedule overall. You tried claiming they are not any better than they were 6 weeks ago or so because of the schedule...that is the ridiculous part.

 

I think they are? I think they are a solid team...probably around #7-8 in the league...finish about 10-6.

Which is a far cry from what I thought of them when they were 4-4 and playing like crap and there was no sign of this defense like this or the short passing game.

 

Rodgers has one drive in his career that led them to victory? So the other 7 wins this year had nothing to do with any drives he had?

 

You are seriously approaching pimp status here for how foolish you are being.

 

Ahh....I just focused on the Lions....not the Dallas part.

 

I've said they played well in the Dallas game. They stepped up. But I really didn't think they looked good at all in the Baltimore game. Hey, a win is a win. But that was some ugly, ugly football. Oh, and then they beat DET and SF....and they played an uneven game in the SF game. The Niners did well to claw their way back into that game.

 

It's kinda funny you think I'm trolling just because I don't agree with you. Seriously, I haven't made anything up at all, just taken a different perspective on things....and you're getting all bent because of it.

 

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

knocks against the pack.......

 

 

they have an easy schedule

 

they have not beaten anyone

 

they cant win against the vikes.

 

rodgers turns the ball over alot

 

rodgers takes sacks by holding onto the ball too long

 

the pack cant beat dallas or zona so they are one and done in the playoffs.

 

 

 

 

 

The offense sucks.

 

The defense sucks.

 

Special teams suck.

 

The coaches suck.

 

That incompetent polar bear of a gm sucks. Real bad.

[Joey Gladstone 33]

knocks against the pack.......

they have an easy schedule

 

they have not beaten anyone

 

they cant win against the vikes.

 

rodgers turns the ball over alot

 

rodgers takes sacks by holding onto the ball too long

 

the pack cant beat dallas or zona so they are one and done in the playoffs.

The offense sucks.

 

The defense sucks.

 

Special teams suck.

 

The coaches suck.

 

That incompetent polar bear of a gm sucks. Real bad.

 

In-depth and expert analysis.

 

Lets discuss it more in this thread Sweet Britches

 

http://www.fftodayforums.com/forum/index.p...howtopic=358777

[Sho Nuff 720]

Ahh....I just focused on the Lions....not the Dallas part.

 

I've said they played well in the Dallas game. They stepped up. But I really didn't think they looked good at all in the Baltimore game. Hey, a win is a win. But that was some ugly, ugly football. Oh, and then they beat DET and SF....and they played an uneven game in the SF game. The Niners did well to claw their way back into that game.

 

It's kinda funny you think I'm trolling just because I don't agree with you. Seriously, I haven't made anything up at all, just taken a different perspective on things....and you're getting all bent because of it.

 

 

I guess you miss how Baltimore got little to no pressure on Rodgers.

How Green Bay's front 7 dominated the Ravens Oline for most of that game?

 

Its not a shock you did not think they looked good at all for the Balt game. Yes, the penalties were ugly. But defensively, and that Oline looked much improved. The part you don't seem to grasp.

 

But you are trolling...your continued crap is proving that. It has nothing to do with disagreeing with me. It has to do with your failure to grasp simple logic over and over and over again.

[Sho Nuff 720]

knocks against the pack.......

they have an easy schedule

 

they have not beaten anyone

 

they cant win against the vikes.

 

rodgers turns the ball over alot

 

rodgers takes sacks by holding onto the ball too long

 

the pack cant beat dallas or zona so they are one and done in the playoffs.

The offense sucks.

 

The defense sucks.

 

Special teams suck.

 

The coaches suck.

 

That incompetent polar bear of a gm sucks. Real bad.

 

 

Just wow...never thought someone would overtake some of the schmucks here and actually make me want to use the ignore function.

 

Holy crap you are idiotic.

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

Just wow...never thought someone would overtake some of the schmucks here and actually make me want to use the ignore function.

 

Holy crap you are idiotic.

what is wrong with my assessment?

[Sho Nuff 720]

what is wrong with my assessment?

 

Its full of complete and total crap.

[mozzy84 0]

Its full of complete and total crap.

so its exactly like you?

[Sho Nuff 720]

so its exactly like you?

[IMMensaMind 460]

the fact remains..........the vikes are 10-2 with favre and division champs with a season sweep of the pack..........favre is mvp this year............nothing will take that away.

 

Rodgers has potential, but the vikes are clearly better this year and next as well....rodgers has proven nothing yet and favre has proven he is a field general.

 

You are premature. The Vikings were run off the field in Arizona. Do not count your chickens.

 

If Green Bay gets into the playoffs and eliminates Minnesota, file it under "K.arma I.s A B.itch". There's a reason so many football pundits are starting to talk about Green Bay as a dangerous playoff team. Great defense - which is just now beginning to show up - does that. Fixing the O-line and allowing Rodgers to operate without running for his life is solidifying it.

 

I earnestly hope for Donald Driver and Charles Woodson to get to - and win - a SuperBowl. Those guys honestly deserves it, for who they are both on and off the field.

[IMMensaMind 460]

BINGO! BINGO! BINGO!

 

It's been 5 years, Green Bay has sucked and Rodgers has rotted on the bench for three of them. Favre is now on the hated Vikings and they are better than Green Bay. Green Bay still has the same problems they had with Favre except Jennings and Driver are years older.

 

I don't even know how anyone could debate this? I'm really at a loss. So far it was a terrible pick. It hasn't panned out. It might have been a great extension, he might have great years going on, but they wasted the pick and they let one of the best QB's of all time go to their rival.

 

This is a giant clueless statement. CLUELESS. Green Bay was in the NFC Championship game 3 years ago, so WTF are you flapping your gums about? Green Bay is now being talked about as a SuperBowl contender, so seriously: DIAF.

 

There was nothing Green Bay could do to stop what happened, but you don't know that because you're not wise, insightful, or able to listen to what has been said in this thread. Favre wanted to go to another team; Thompson made sure it was in the AFC, and thus ensured keeping Rodgers, who is in the midst of proving why it was so important to keep him.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Favre leaving the Packers was best for both Favre and the Packers.

 

Favre ended up going to a contender.

 

The Packers got to keep the future of their franchise.

 

There really is nothing to argue about here. It worked out for everyone.

 

And this reasonable - and correct - post is why trolls like Pimp and his million aliases are simply a joke in this forum. Other posters see through their bullshit.

[IMMensaMind 460]

His rookie contract was for $25 million with a $7 mil signing bonus. For zero play.

 

I don't care if he was hinting at retirement they should have rode that chuck wagon to the ponderosa.

 

If you are questioning why I give Favre the benefit of the doubt and not Rodgers, well, hasn't Favre earned it?

 

It's not hindsight if I was saying 5 years ago that they made a bad pick there. It's not hindsight because for 5 years people have been questioning that pick. Not just me. When the pick was made the consistent draft grades were C and D. Everyone felt that Green Bay grabbed the biggest faller but that they hadn't really wanted him or they would have moved up to get him. The general consensus was they helped their future but did nothing to address the present. Go do some research I don't feel like providing links. That's proved true except that Green Bay could still have Favre and could be drafting a QB this year when about 6 of them are coming out that are NFL quality.

 

The best part of this whole thing, is that they also wasted a 2nd round pick on Briah Brohm. So now they could have had Favre, spent less money, still been competitive and surrounded him with an two more first day picks.

 

You and I we don't agree on this matter.

 

And you...are wrong. Can you find for me another #1 draft pick QB who didn't get the same deal in scale? No? Then your point is: STUPID. Elite QBs are very hard to find, and when you believe you have, you do what you have to to keep him. That is what they did in Rodgers, and they made the correct move. And Favre going to Minnesota was the best possible thing that could have happened to Rodgers, as the fans have lined up solidly behind him.

 

Funny how things like that work out for top tier QBs.

 

Tell me: if it's "no big deal" to grab "one of 6 NFL quality" QBs in the draft: which one is going to work out to be better than Rodgers?

 

HM?

 

If you cannot do that, you lose. Your points are rebuked. Favre is not a better than Rodgers at this point in his career. You saw what Favre did in Arizona. That is what will happen when he faces adversity, and as Packers fans, we know it all too well, as Favre is the reason we did not go to the SuperBowl in 2007.

[IMMensaMind 460]

they also had a hof qb on their team...........something the pack used to have until they ran favre out of town. cant win without a qb team leader and rodgers is stat guy never done much except throw garbage time tds and run up stats.

 

Troll, that's what everyone said about Peyton Manning as well. Until he won a SuperBowl. Now run off and make another batch of fries: there's someone honking the horn at you in the drive-thru.

[PsychoBelichickFan 0]

And you...are wrong. Can you find for me another #1 draft pick QB who didn't get the same deal in scale? No? Then your point is: STUPID. Elite QBs are very hard to find, and when you believe you have, you do what you have to to keep him. That is what they did in Rodgers, and they made the correct move. And Favre going to Minnesota was the best possible thing that could have happened to Rodgers, as the fans have lined up solidly behind him.

 

Funny how things like that work out for top tier QBs.

 

Tell me: if it's "no big deal" to grab "one of 6 NFL quality" QBs in the draft: which one is going to work out to be better than Rodgers?

 

HM?

 

If you cannot do that, you lose. Your points are rebuked. Favre is not a better than Rodgers at this point in his career. You saw what Favre did in Arizona. That is what will happen when he faces adversity, and as Packers fans, we know it all too well, as Favre is the reason we did not go to the SuperBowl in 2007.

 

 

Rodgers gets his stats against prevent defenses. He holds the ball too long because he's AFRAID to throw it (it's all about stats for him)

 

Some have said rodgers is the mvp this year. Well I contend that the easy schedule might have a large part in that..........

 

two lions games, a browns game, a bucs game, a rams game and a bears game ........

 

He has 15 Tds against some of the worst teams in the NFL in these six games. I am a rodgers fantasy owner...I know he can fill up a stat sheet. My issue is with him being touted as some top 5 qb when he has not played anyone. The guy has had a cakewalk schedule and has never been to the playoffs or had a winning season.