Packers @ Bears

[Law 220]

The mysterious gift of a spot on the 4th and 1 was MUCH more questionable than the collar call.

[donhaas 18]

that's not a horsecollar. he didn't pull him backwards.

 

It was a bad call.... but no worse than the mugging of Driver down at the 6 or the fourth down that Chicago didn't come close to making...

 

I don't think it matters in the long run. Those are two pretty bad teams.

[The Hood 9]

I may be a little biased, but am I the only one who thinks that horsecollar call was a little questionable?

 

Yes, the defender grabbed on like the usual horsecollar, but instead of pulling him down from behind, the defender used it to pull himself onto Olsen, and rode him down like a normal tackle.

 

Definitely not the Roy Williams variety of horsecollar.

Does the rule actually state pulled down from behind or is it just grabbing and tackling by the back of the shoulder pads?

[KingofBeer 0]

So I'm not the only one that thinks so.

 

terrible call. the penalty was designed to prevent injuries from being pulled backward and having a player's own weight come down awkwardly on his knees and ankles. none of that happened. he went entirely forward. just terrible.

[KingofBeer 0]

It was a bad call.... but no worse than the mugging of Driver down at the 6 or the fourth down that Chicago didn't come close to making...

 

I don't think it matters in the long run. Those are two pretty bad teams.

 

I never saw an angle that showed the fourth down spot. I didn't think it was all that bad from what I saw. Now the Driver non-call on the other hand....

[The Hood 9]

The mysterious gift of a spot on the 4th and 1 was MUCH more questionable than the collar call.

 

The yellow line marker was a half yard off. He only had to get to the 3.

[rise&demise 0]

The yellow line marker was a half yard off. He only had to get to the 3.

 

I've run the video back several times now. I think the yellow line was definitely a few inches inside of what was indicated by the yardage markers. Nowhere near 1/2 yard, looks about 1/2 foot to me. The spot looks pretty decent and can't argue with the first down.

[dreadlocks34 0]

Why does any of this matter in the slightest anyway? Of course I will seem biased, but what difference does it make if the Bears get into the playoffs? They, just like the Cardinals, will only be there taking up space. Neither of those teams have even a 1% chance of winning a game in New York or Carolina. The Bears are literally not good at any phase of the game at this point. Their offense sucks other than Forte and he is hurt, the defense has been very bad for alot of the season and Hester doesn't return kicks for scores anymore. They are just not a very good team. At least with my team they have the players in the right spots to make a run if given the chance. Of course when you set the NFL record for special teams touichdowns allowed in a single season, that is not going to help. But at least with their defense and running attack they have a legitimate shot of winning games. Anyone who says that about the Bears is either a serious homer or just finished can number 22 of Blatz.

[robertd52 0]

only NFL rulebook I could find was from 06.

Dont think they have changed the horse collar rule since then.

 

Here is EXACTLY what it reads:

"grabbing the inside collar of the back of the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of

the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately pulling down the runner. This

does not apply to a runner who is in the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket."

 

Now, it says "pulling down", I dont know if that means pulled backwards...

I sorta read that to mean used in any form of a tackle to get the runner down (solely).

 

And in this case, it was. Olsen is a strong guy, leaning forward, so it didnt pull him back, but it DEF slowed him up, and it DEF caused him to just call it a play and fall to the ground.

 

Its such a slippery slope, that im quite certain they dont put the judgment on the reffs to decide if he "coulda hurt the guy". So I think they just say period, if you grab the collar of the jersey or pads, and that is the means of which you bring the runner to the ground (forward, pulled back, stopped progress and the runner goes to the ground), then they are gonna throw a flag.

 

Sound right?

[listen2me 23 1,576]

Total gift.

 

That was some of the worst blocking for a FG I have ever seen, 3 guys had enough penatration to block it. I'm not sure the exact rule on the horsecollar.

 

AJ Hawk once again shows his athletic ability on the 3rd down to Forte to ultimatly get into easy FG range. On a pass that was going to Forte the whole time, he was never in position to cover him, and then slipped on top of it.

 

Packers defense played great, but it was the Bears. Offense has to get the ball in the endzone after going for it and getting the 4th and 1. Instead they call a QB sneak from the 5 yard line and lose 4 yards.

 

Packers played well, Bears played terrible. Every possible thing went the Bears way.

 

Definition of the Packers' season. The Bears really do suck though, when will they ever get a real QB? Orton was god awful. If I remember the stats right they have had 1 WR go to the Pro Bowl since '71. Since Favre became QB the Bears have had 1 season with top 10 in passing, and haven't had a pro bowl QB.

 

Weird game, I bet the Bears creep into the playoffs with this "win".

[Vikings4ever 496]

only NFL rulebook I could find was from 06.

Dont think they have changed the horse collar rule since then.

 

Here is EXACTLY what it reads:

"grabbing the inside collar of the back of the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of

the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately pulling down the runner. This

does not apply to a runner who is in the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket."

 

Now, it says "pulling down", I dont know if that means pulled backwards...

I sorta read that to mean used in any form of a tackle to get the runner down (solely).

 

And in this case, it was. Olsen is a strong guy, leaning forward, so it didnt pull him back, but it DEF slowed him up, and it DEF caused him to just call it a play and fall to the ground.

 

Its such a slippery slope, that im quite certain they dont put the judgment on the reffs to decide if he "coulda hurt the guy". So I think they just say period, if you grab the collar of the jersey or pads, and that is the means of which you bring the runner to the ground (forward, pulled back, stopped progress and the runner goes to the ground), then they are gonna throw a flag.

 

Sound right?

Except the defender didn't pull Olsen down. He pulled himself onto Olsen, used his other arm to grab him, and rode Olsen down.

[listen2me 23 1,576]

Why does any of this matter in the slightest anyway? Of course I will seem biased, but what difference does it make if the Bears get into the playoffs? They, just like the Cardinals, will only be there taking up space. Neither of those teams have even a 1% chance of winning a game in New York or Carolina. The Bears are literally not good at any phase of the game at this point. Their offense sucks other than Forte and he is hurt, the defense has been very bad for alot of the season and Hester doesn't return kicks for scores anymore. They are just not a very good team. At least with my team they have the players in the right spots to make a run if given the chance. Of course when you set the NFL record for special teams touichdowns allowed in a single season, that is not going to help. But at least with their defense and running attack they have a legitimate shot of winning games. Anyone who says that about the Bears is either a serious homer or just finished can number 22 of Blatz.

 

Wow, don't kid yourself.

 

I agree Bears won't do anything. Cards could if they get their Offense going. The Vikings are just as bad as the Bears. If you think Tavaris Jackson can win a playoff game you are kidding yourself. Sure he might if the Bears get in as a 6th seed. I guess they could possibly beat TB too. Basically I thought the NFC was better at the beginning of the season, but it sucks. There are 2 teams that are any good, Panthers and Giants. Atlanta can be good if Ryan continues his good play in the playoffs.

 

Realistically The Vikings, Bears, and Cards have ZERO chance of being the Giants of last year. So it doesn't really matter who gets in.

[Sho Nuff 720]

On the horse collar.

I can see why it was called, he was riding him there with his hand in the jersey.

IMO, his other arm being around him and not just pulling down immediately (like the rule actually states) is what made it questionable.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Total gift.

 

That was some of the worst blocking for a FG I have ever seen, 3 guys had enough penatration to block it. I'm not sure the exact rule on the horsecollar.

 

AJ Hawk once again shows his athletic ability on the 3rd down to Forte to ultimatly get into easy FG range. On a pass that was going to Forte the whole time, he was never in position to cover him, and then slipped on top of it.

 

Packers defense played great, but it was the Bears. Offense has to get the ball in the endzone after going for it and getting the 4th and 1. Instead they call a QB sneak from the 5 yard line and lose 4 yards.

 

Packers played well, Bears played terrible. Every possible thing went the Bears way.

 

Definition of the Packers' season. The Bears really do suck though, when will they ever get a real QB? Orton was god awful. If I remember the stats right they have had 1 WR go to the Pro Bowl since '71. Since Favre became QB the Bears have had 1 season with top 10 in passing, and haven't had a pro bowl QB.

 

Weird game, I bet the Bears creep into the playoffs with this "win".

 

Few things...Agreed on the FG blocking...just terrible.

Hawk slipped. Sure he let the guy get the ball (2 guys there actually that did that). He had him covered well a few times earlier.

The slip obviously makes it that much worse...on that field and footing though, not the first player to have done that.

Still not good play by the guy...he better step up.

Defense played great early...but again gave up the tying TD drive late...and then drive for the FG in OT.

 

Offense did ok..Rodgers played pretty darn well in those conditions. But yes, when they get down there, they have to get the TD. The draw call was just absolutely terrible.

Im still in shock they did not go with the FB dive on 4th and 1.

 

Stock should be fired tomorrow.

[listen2me 23 1,576]

Few things...Agreed on the FG blocking...just terrible.

Hawk slipped. Sure he let the guy get the ball (2 guys there actually that did that). He had him covered well a few times earlier.

The slip obviously makes it that much worse...on that field and footing though, not the first player to have done that.

Still not good play by the guy...he better step up.

Defense played great early...but again gave up the tying TD drive late...and then drive for the FG in OT.

 

Offense did ok..Rodgers played pretty darn well in those conditions. But yes, when they get down there, they have to get the TD. The draw call was just absolutely terrible.

Im still in shock they did not go with the FB dive on 4th and 1.

 

Stock should be fired tomorrow.

 

I know the field was slippery, but before the slip he wasn't in position. The pass was going to Forte the whole time. Without the slip Forte still would have got the ball in space and got the 1st down.

 

Defense still played great for what any Packer fan expects. Not Dominating, but very good. 3 pts went straight off the Bush punt touch. The final drive to tie it up was played well in the redzone. The spot could have went either way, they got it by 3 inches. Overall they gave up 17 pts in regulation with a couple good run backs by Manning and 3 pts straight off the Bush touch. They forced 2 ints, and sacked Orton 3 or 4 times...

 

Offense was like every game, move the ball well for parts of drives then punt. End up with good yardage but on'y have 17-21 pts to show for it.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I know the field was slippery, but before the slip he wasn't in position. The pass was going to Forte the whole time. Without the slip Forte still would have got the ball in space and got the 1st down.

 

Defense still played great for what any Packer fan expects. Not Dominating, but very good. 3 pts went straight off the Bush punt touch. The final drive to tie it up was played well in the redzone. The spot could have went either way, they got it by 3 inches. Overall they gave up 17 pts in regulation with a couple good run backs by Manning and 3 pts straight off the Bush touch. They forced 2 ints, and sacked Orton 3 or 4 times...

 

Offense was like every game, move the ball well for parts of drives then punt. End up with good yardage but on'y have 17-21 pts to show for it.

 

Yeah...they stall too often.

Have a nice run, then a false start...then a 2 yard run and third and long.

Or the incomplete pass and predictable 1 yard run on 2nd and 10.

McCarthy lost all his imagination and has gotten way too predictable...

That missed pass interference on Driver was terrible too.

[Sweetness_34 0]

Wow....my head is still spinning

 

All of you are aware of the crazy rollercoaster game itself, but I had a crazy rollercoaster in my FF Championship game too. I had Forte + Crosby down 16 and into the 3rd quarter, I had given up because of no production from Forte and Crsoby missing one FG (we get negatives for missed FGs). And then Forte came to life on that TD drive with runs, catches (PPR league) and then the TD at the end. And then Crosby's FG got blocked and I was down again, and then finally won it with the Forte catch for 1st down before the OT FG.

 

Now add to that I am a Bears fan (who has no voice now shouting and rooting during the game), and my head definitely hurts. At one point, I knew if Crosby scored the FG in OT, I would win in FF but the Bears would lose. So quite an emotional rollercoaster.

 

Now onto the real game, Bears played horrible O (until the last 2 drives), decent D most of the time but great STs and that was enough to beat the crappy fudge-packers, who did everything to knock the Bears out (going for it on 4th down; fake punt etc). I do blame Ron Turner for not calling screen passes to Forte more earlier in the game.

 

Staying alive is great.....now the pressure is on the viqueens who have nothing but chokes in their history (remember the Cardinals catch Queen fans a few years back in week 17? Or the epic NFC Championship choke against the Falcons). If the Giants play their starters for 4 quarters, I think the Giants win this game. If they do not, Queens have a real shot.

 

Go Bears!!! Fudge-packers sukk. This game is going to go down in the history of the packer-Bears games. Always a blood bath, but there have been some crazy games (Chester marcol anyone? The wrong call by the Ref on the Majowski TD anyone? The Brian Robinson FG block in Lameblow to beat the fudgies after Sweetness passed away anyone? Now this one)

 

[BMoney 0]

Go Bears!!! Fudge-packers sukk. This game is going to go down in the history of the packer-Bears games. Always a blood bath, but there have been some crazy games (Chester marcol anyone? The wrong call by the Ref on the Majowski TD anyone? The Brian Robinson FG block in Lameblow to beat the fudgies after Sweetness passed away anyone? Now this one)

 

 

 

the majkowski play WAS legal....

 

and somewhere..even ahmad carroll thinks that jarrett bush is stupid....

 

i dont care about the aaron debate anymore..im done with it...i just keep seeing 5-10...good heavens...

[flynsqrls 1]

the majkowski play WAS legal....

 

and somewhere..even ahmad carroll thinks that jarrett bush is stupid....

 

i dont care about the aaron debate anymore..im done with it...i just keep seeing 5-10...good heavens...

 

I think jarrett bush should join ahmed carrol as the only dbs to be cut after their !@@#$% performances!

Why doesn't Ryan Grant run wide?

Why doesn't Rodgers do bootlegs?

Who is calling the packers plays???

 

I am sad again...

[Sweetness_34 0]

One more thing: Bears dominated the Falcons, Bucs and Panthers for 95% of the game and screwed up to lose all of those games. Thankfully, they won a game where they played badly for a lot of the time during the game, only to play well enough when it mattered.

[Sho Nuff 720]

the majkowski play WAS legal....

 

and somewhere..even ahmad carroll thinks that jarrett bush is stupid....

 

i dont care about the aaron debate anymore..im done with it...i just keep seeing 5-10...good heavens...

 

Yes...Bush needs to be sharing a cab with Stock sometime soon and get the hell out of town.

You don't care about the Aaron debate because he played pretty well yesterday...and had the team again in position for the go ahead score.

Sure, they could have done more offensively, and he missed some throws...but for the most part, he was seeing the blitz, making the right reads, not holding onto the ball too long. Crisp throws...only forced maybe one ball near the endzone in the one drive.

 

Defense played well for about 50 minutes.

Special teams blew.

Offense stalled too many times and squandered some opportunities.

[The Hood 9]

One more thing: Bears dominated the Falcons, Bucs and Panthers for 95% of the game and screwed up to lose all of those games. Thankfully, they won a game where they played badly for a lot of the time during the game, only to play well enough when it mattered.

They did not dominate the Falcons. Got lucky late and should have pulled it out but then Lovie pulled the first stupid pooch kick (2nd won last night) and then Ryan made a clutch throw to set up the FG. That bullsh1t call on Tillman for pushing a guy after taking a total cheap shot in the Tampa game to keep alive their winning drive still pisses me off.

[listen2me 23 1,576]

Yes...Bush needs to be sharing a cab with Stock sometime soon and get the hell out of town.

You don't care about the Aaron debate because he played pretty well yesterday...and had the team again in position for the go ahead score.

Sure, they could have done more offensively, and he missed some throws...but for the most part, he was seeing the blitz, making the right reads, not holding onto the ball too long. Crisp throws...only forced maybe one ball near the endzone in the one drive.

 

Defense played well for about 50 minutes.

Special teams blew.

Offense stalled too many times and squandered some opportunities.

 

When Favre put up pts and did well with the Packers it was all him. If Favre and the Packers lost, and they put up 20 pts, its all on him and how he can't win the big game anymore.

 

I see stats, but I keep seeing 17-21 pts, which is decent if you are that kind of team that is ball control and is built around Defense. The Off. keeps putting up only 20 or so pts when the D gives them a couple posessions back with INts. The Defense isn't good, but they give them the ball back.

 

I see solid play by Rodgers, but I do not see the kind of pts it takes to win the game. Just like the announcers said last night. They have the most D TDs, they are top 3 in ints, Rodgers has played well, but they are 5-10!!!! How? Two things... the D isn't good, and Rodgers doesn't score pts. They have to get the ball in the endzone.

 

It makes no sense for this team to be 5-10. Rodgers did play pretty well. I was impressed by the zip and accuracy of the balls he threw in that cold. But it makes no sense when Rodgers played solid, the D plays good, and Grant is effective enough to say we had a run game....but then still lose.

[Belushi 9]

They've lost a ton of games my 4 points or less with what is basically a rookie QB. Did anyone expect Rodgers to play anywhere near this level after having to take over from a legend? I don't recall seeing any predictions close to the numbers he's put up. They are a good team that hasn't been good enough to win the close games. And we've seen what happens to allot of teams like that - they get an easier schedule the following year and start winning allot. Rodgers has shown that he can be a top QB in the NFL, he just needs to learn how to win games when they're down late. Everyone gives other young QB's a break; Rodgers should get the same break.

 

Does anyone believe that they can't win the division next year? Lions will still suck, and Minny and Chicago will still not have a QB. If the Packers can improve on D and Rodgers continues to improve his play, I see no reason they can't win the division next year. They're still one of the youngest teams in the NFL and were close to having a very good season this year. Next year, some of the breaks will go their way.

[listen2me 23 1,576]

Does anyone believe that they can't win the division next year? Lions will still suck, and Minny and Chicago will still not have a QB. If the Packers can improve on D and Rodgers continues to improve his play, I see no reason they can't win the division next year. They're still one of the youngest teams in the NFL and were close to having a very good season this year. Next year, some of the breaks will go their way.

 

I don't know how you can say they are close to having a good season this year.

[Sho Nuff 720]

When Favre put up pts and did well with the Packers it was all him. If Favre and the Packers lost, and they put up 20 pts, its all on him and how he can't win the big game anymore.

 

I see stats, but I keep seeing 17-21 pts, which is decent if you are that kind of team that is ball control and is built around Defense. The Off. keeps putting up only 20 or so pts when the D gives them a couple posessions back with INts. The Defense isn't good, but they give them the ball back.

 

I see solid play by Rodgers, but I do not see the kind of pts it takes to win the game. Just like the announcers said last night. They have the most D TDs, they are top 3 in ints, Rodgers has played well, but they are 5-10!!!! How? Two things... the D isn't good, and Rodgers doesn't score pts. They have to get the ball in the endzone.

 

It makes no sense for this team to be 5-10. Rodgers did play pretty well. I was impressed by the zip and accuracy of the balls he threw in that cold. But it makes no sense when Rodgers played solid, the D plays good, and Grant is effective enough to say we had a run game....but then still lose.

 

When was it ever all on him in winning or losing? I have rarely...and don't think I have ever...put it all on him...winning or losing.

 

17-21 points in that weather is not all that terrible. Remember what a Favre led offense did in that weather last year (ok, a bit more wind) with much more on the line?

The offense keeps putting up only 20 or so? They average 25.9 a game. (yes, some of that is d and special teams too)....the last 3 weeks, yes, the offense has not put up as many points.

I have criticized them for settling for FGs too much lately.

 

They did give them the ball back yesterday for sure. As I said, the D played well for 50 minutes of that game. Special teams was just awful.

Offense was its usual inconsistent and unable to always capitalize. In the end though, the offense and a good return with a penalty had them in position to win.

 

I don't think Grant was effective enough all game. Too many negative plays (not all on him as Harris was blowing up Spitz and the line). And 2 huge special teams errors (the big return and Bush sucking as usual).

And 2 missed FGs (one blocked).

Plus punting was not great either yesterday.

 

Again, Rodgers was not perfect at all. But the offense put up 13 points against a terrible Denver defense last year...but all people will remember is the throw to Jennings in OT.

What happens if that coin toss goes the other way and the team does what it did last night or against Tennessee?

There are going to be times when the offense struggles...the D has got to step up...and for 50 minutes they did. And I don't put this loss even close on them. I blame the offense before the defense this time...and special teams really should get a good reaming as should McCarthy.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I don't know how you can say they are close to having a good season this year.

 

I don't like to play the "5 plays away from 9-6 right now" card...and I don't think they are as close as some may say.

But they are close to a better record with just a few plays. But they did not make them...or numerous other plays over the course of a game to get those wins.

But point to 3 specific games that they blew.

1. Minnesota...like the Bears last night, the Packers had no right to win that game...but had a chance late with a missed FG.

2. Carolina...9 minute drive to go up with under 2 minutes left to play. Terrible special teams all game hurt, but even worse when it happens then. Smith does not make that catch or the D just stops them on that drive...

3. Blocked FG with under 30 seconds to go last night.

 

Thats pretty close.

Fact is, they did not make those plays.

I don't think its a good team...and I guess you are what your record shows...but this is a team that seems a bit better than their record...more of an 8-8 kind of team than a 5-10 one.

Just from comparing it to a few years ago when they were 4-12. This team is much better than that one at least as far as going forward is concerned.

[listen2me 23 1,576]

When was it ever all on him in winning or losing? I have rarely...and don't think I have ever...put it all on him...winning or losing.

 

17-21 points in that weather is not all that terrible. Remember what a Favre led offense did in that weather last year (ok, a bit more wind) with much more on the line?

The offense keeps putting up only 20 or so? They average 25.9 a game. (yes, some of that is d and special teams too)....the last 3 weeks, yes, the offense has not put up as many points.

I have criticized them for settling for FGs too much lately.

 

They did give them the ball back yesterday for sure. As I said, the D played well for 50 minutes of that game. Special teams was just awful.

Offense was its usual inconsistent and unable to always capitalize. In the end though, the offense and a good return with a penalty had them in position to win.

 

I don't think Grant was effective enough all game. Too many negative plays (not all on him as Harris was blowing up Spitz and the line). And 2 huge special teams errors (the big return and Bush sucking as usual).

And 2 missed FGs (one blocked).

Plus punting was not great either yesterday.

 

Again, Rodgers was not perfect at all. But the offense put up 13 points against a terrible Denver defense last year...but all people will remember is the throw to Jennings in OT.

What happens if that coin toss goes the other way and the team does what it did last night or against Tennessee?

There are going to be times when the offense struggles...the D has got to step up...and for 50 minutes they did. And I don't put this loss even close on them. I blame the offense before the defense this time...and special teams really should get a good reaming as should McCarthy.

 

I don't know why you try and compare Favre this year with the Packers. I rarely bring up the comparing of the 2. I am talking about as a whole the last few years....if Favre couldn't manage to win the game in the end, with good defense on his side or not, he was tore apart on here by everyone. I just don't get why you run to Favre's struggles as of late with the Jets. I am talking about the Packers and their Offense and what is expected with this team.

 

17 pts isn't terrible in that weather, but its not enough to say hey, SCREW THE OTHER PARTS OF THE TEAM, I WILL WIN THIS THING. He played well, I'm not bashing him. But there are different levels to QBing, and he is just on the level of sound timing with his WRs, move the ball, but never take over the game, which would have been enough this year if the defense played well all year.

[listen2me 23 1,576]

I don't like to play the "5 plays away from 9-6 right now" card...and I don't think they are as close as some may say.

But they are close to a better record with just a few plays. But they did not make them...or numerous other plays over the course of a game to get those wins.

But point to 3 specific games that they blew.

1. Minnesota...like the Bears last night, the Packers had no right to win that game...but had a chance late with a missed FG.

2. Carolina...9 minute drive to go up with under 2 minutes left to play. Terrible special teams all game hurt, but even worse when it happens then. Smith does not make that catch or the D just stops them on that drive...

3. Blocked FG with under 30 seconds to go last night.

 

Thats pretty close.

Fact is, they did not make those plays.

I don't think its a good team...and I guess you are what your record shows...but this is a team that seems a bit better than their record...more of an 8-8 kind of team than a 5-10 one.

Just from comparing it to a few years ago when they were 4-12. This team is much better than that one at least as far as going forward is concerned.

 

Sure they give them the break in half of those games they would be a .500 team at best at the end of the year. Better? Sure, but not anywhere near a good team considering 2 gimmies vs the Lions, and 2 other average teams in the division. So they aren't close to anything besides a better record and still missing the playoffs. You can't just give them all the breaks in each game.

 

The team seems better because they are decent to watch. They move the ball, defense creates TOs. But they aren't a better team. They have no clue how to win, Rodgers, defense, STs, coaching....no one has a clue right now how to win a close game or finish a game. These guys are a 6-10 or 8-8 team if you want to give them breaks. In most other divisions they are a 4-12 team. Stick them in the AFC South, AFC East, NFC East, or NFC South, and they would be 5-10 WITH some of the breaks.

 

When you keep losing by 3 or 4 consistantly, it isn't bad luck, or tough breaks. It is because you aren't good, and do not know how to win a game.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I don't know why you try and compare Favre this year with the Packers. I rarely bring up the comparing of the 2. I am talking about as a whole the last few years....if Favre couldn't manage to win the game in the end, with good defense on his side or not, he was tore apart on here by everyone. I just don't get why you run to Favre's struggles as of late with the Jets. I am talking about the Packers and their Offense and what is expected with this team.

 

17 pts isn't terrible in that weather, but its not enough to say hey, SCREW THE OTHER PARTS OF THE TEAM, I WILL WIN THIS THING. He played well, I'm not bashing him. But there are different levels to QBing, and he is just on the level of sound timing with his WRs, move the ball, but never take over the game, which would have been enough this year if the defense played well all year.

 

Im comparing Favre because much of this has been put on Rodgers. And Favre has had his own difficulties and he is a 15 year vet.

I don't think he was torn apart by everyone...mainly other fans, but defended for the most part by the packer fans.

I agree you can't say screw the other parts of the team...they screwed up big time last night...just typical of this seaon I guess.

[Sho Nuff 720]

Sure they give them the break in half of those games they would be a .500 team at best at the end of the year. Better? Sure, but not anywhere near a good team considering 2 gimmies vs the Lions, and 2 other average teams in the division. So they aren't close to anything besides a better record and still missing the playoffs. You can't just give them all the breaks in each game.

 

The team seems better because they are decent to watch. They move the ball, defense creates TOs. But they aren't a better team. They have no clue how to win, Rodgers, defense, STs, coaching....no one has a clue right now how to win a close game or finish a game. These guys are a 6-10 or 8-8 team if you want to give them breaks. In most other divisions they are a 4-12 team. Stick them in the AFC South, AFC East, NFC East, or NFC South, and they would be 5-10 with some of the breaks.

 

When you keep losing by 3 or 4 consistantly, it isn't bad luck, or tough breaks. It is because you aren't good, and do not know how to win a game.

 

I think they are a better team. The line, while not great...is better than they were with Klemm and Whittaker.

Far better at WR and even TE than they were then trotting out Ferguson as a #1 or #2 guy and Franks inability to do much of anything.

Defensively they are not great...but better IMO than that team talent wise (though, give me Bates over Sanders as DC any day).

I think in the AFC East they are better than 5-10. Buffalo is not good, NY is starting to show their weaknesses...plus that division got to play 8 games against the AFC and NFC West....a bit easier schedule than playing 8 games against the AFC and NFC South.

 

I agree, the consistent losses is not all bad luck or bad breaks...its bad play at crucial times...its inconsistency. I don't know if its just the youth and inexperience...I hope so. But I think its a combo of things and has to lead its way to the top 2 dogs. McC for pulling back into his turtle shell and going conservative...and TT for not having some more veteran leadership out there.

[BMoney 0]

There are going to be times when the offense struggles....

 

 

1 time being..the 08 season?

 

 

I just am giving up on the debate...my point was made...and any of rodgers sloppy play isnt because of the other fans trying to tear him apart...he does the false starts, ints and other things on his own....its aaron rodgers im debating over..aaron freeking rodgers..destined to be a nice numbers qb and a trivia question...but thats it...

 

all in all...a nice game statistically..i think hes the best qb ibn the league for qbs who dont win games....at this rate, im looking at 20 years of this and rodgers name on the packers ring next to the other greats....

 

stock is still on the team but is already gone..he knows it...im afraid this 13-3 season is going to buy the staff 2 years...if it wasnt for the 13-3 season, i think we could assume that the house would be cleaned....

 

 

TT signed rodgers to the extension WAY too early...how many games has aaron won since it...2?

 

i game ahead of seattle with 1 to go...thats enough to get TT fired...seattle has all backups in on the o-line, qb..some wideouts...

[listen2me 23 1,576]

I think they are a better team. The line, while not great...is better than they were with Klemm and Whittaker.

Far better at WR and even TE than they were then trotting out Ferguson as a #1 or #2 guy and Franks inability to do much of anything.

Defensively they are not great...but better IMO than that team talent wise (though, give me Bates over Sanders as DC any day).

I think in the AFC East they are better than 5-10. Buffalo is not good, NY is starting to show their weaknesses...plus that division got to play 8 games against the AFC and NFC West....a bit easier schedule than playing 8 games against the AFC and NFC South.

 

I agree, the consistent losses is not all bad luck or bad breaks...its bad play at crucial times...its inconsistency. I don't know if its just the youth and inexperience...I hope so. But I think its a combo of things and has to lead its way to the top 2 dogs. McC for pulling back into his turtle shell and going conservative...and TT for not having some more veteran leadership out there.

 

I think you got mixed up. Never said they were worse than that 4-12 team. They just aren't a good team, and wouldn't be even if they got a couple breaks.

 

The AFC East is a much better Div than the Norris. Buffalo is just as good as the Packers. They play much harder than this Packers team, I watch the Bills almost every week when they aren't on the same time as the Packers. As bad as teh Jets have looked they are better than the Bears. Pats and Dolphins are better than the Vikings. Maybe becasue of schedule it would be different. But honestly the NFC North is so average, and with 2 easy wins vs the Lions. The Bills would not be 2 easy wins by any means.

 

And the youth thing is getting old. When is the team going to hit its prime? They have been young for 3,4 ,5 years. CBs are vets, Safeties have enough experience, Branett is a vet, Hawk is a 3 year player, Chiller is a vet, Popps has experience, Pickett is a vet, Kampman a vet, Jenkins a vet. Tackles are vets, Driver a vet, Jennings 3 years, Lee is a vet, Gaurds have enough experience. The starting linup isn't that young. Most all have game experience and many have been in the league at least 3 or 4 years. The depth is young, not the actual starting linup.

[Sho Nuff 720]

1 time being..the 08 season?

I just am giving up on the debate...my point was made...and any of rodgers sloppy play isnt because of the other fans trying to tear him apart...he does the false starts, ints and other things on his own....its aaron rodgers im debating over..aaron freeking rodgers..destined to be a nice numbers qb and a trivia question...but thats it...

 

all in all...a nice game statistically..i think hes the best qb ibn the league for qbs who dont win games....at this rate, im looking at 20 years of this and rodgers name on the packers ring next to the other greats....

 

stock is still on the team but is already gone..he knows it...im afraid this 13-3 season is going to buy the staff 2 years...if it wasnt for the 13-3 season, i think we could assume that the house would be cleaned....

TT signed rodgers to the extension WAY too early...how many games has aaron won since it...2?

 

i game ahead of seattle with 1 to go...thats enough to get TT fired...seattle has all backups in on the o-line, qb..some wideouts...

 

I don't think they struggled all season (the offense that is).

Your point with Rodgers is complete crap (I remember you calling his numbers garbage time...what kind of garbage time games have they played BMoney? One blowout against Chicago...one blowout loss against NO. Just about every other game came down to the 4th quarter.

 

His play is kind of sloppy...but not nearly as much as you try and make it out to be. You are trying to nitpick every pass the guy throws in a way you have never done for his predecessor.

Yes, its Aaron Rodgers you are debating over...a guy most others see as better than "c level at best".

 

I think Stock will be gone...not sure about Sanders but Im tired of the no imagination basic defense that is just not getting it done. And if I see another slow developing LB blitz (for the little bit he does blitz) I might puke.

TT signed Rodgers to the extension to use up some of this year's cap.

1 game ahead of Seattle means little when they play in that division. Though, they did beat Brett's jets with that terrible Oline and held the savior Brett and the Jets O to 3 points.

Talk about a struggling offense.

[Sho Nuff 720]

I think you got mixed up. Never said they were worse than that 4-12 team. They just aren't a good team, and wouldn't be even if they got a couple breaks.

 

The AFC East is a much better Div than the Norris. Buffalo is just as good as the Packers. They play much harder than this Packers team, I watch the Bills almost every week when they aren't on the same time as the Packers. As bad as teh Jets have looked they are better than the Bears. Pats and Dolphins are better than the Vikings. Maybe becasue of schedule it would be different. But honestly the NFC North is so average, and with 2 easy wins vs the Lions. The Bills would not be 2 easy wins by any means.

 

And the youth thing is getting old. When is the team going to hit its prime? They have been young for 3,4 ,5 years. CBs are vets, Safeties have enough experience, Branett is a vet, Hawk is a 3 year player, Chiller is a vet, Popps has experience, Pickett is a vet, Kampman a vet, Jenkins a vet. Tackles are vets, Driver a vet, Jennings 3 years, Lee is a vet, Gaurds have enough experience. The starting linup isn't that young. Most all have game experience and many have been in the league at least 3 or 4 years. The depth is young, not the actually starting linup.

 

Im not saying you thought they were worse...it was the "they seem better because" line that I was taking exception to.

 

The AFC East has NE and Miami for sure. I don't think Buff is just as good as GB. But that is opinion of course. THe north is also brought completely down by the Lions.

But the division makes up for 6 games out of 16. There are more games agaisnt two pretty easy divisions than against those teams in the East.

I don't think the Jets are way better than the Bears. Better maybe...but not way better. You can't lose to Oakland, San Fran, and Seattle and be called way better than anyone other than maybe the Lions.

The division is average...but again, thats 6 games.

The remaining 10 games...several were tougher for GB and the North because of how much better the Souther divisons are than what the AFC East had to face in the Western divisions.

 

The youth thing is still there though. They are still the NFL's youngest team.

Part of it starts at QB. Inexperience there has hurt. That is a big part of why I support this decision...Rodgers now has a year under his belt and hopefully uses that and improves.

Safeties have enough experience? Bigby and Rouse are basically 2nd year guys.

Tramon is young.

The Dline that came in when Jenkins and KGB go out.

The Oline is getting there...RBs are young.

And so on.

Its not all the youth...Im just saying I hope that is what the inconsistency has been about. Im not banking totally on that though.

And the depth is young...and was needed this year too with the amount of injuries.

[listen2me 23 1,576]

Im not saying you thought they were worse...it was the "they seem better because" line that I was taking exception to.

 

The AFC East has NE and Miami for sure. I don't think Buff is just as good as GB. But that is opinion of course. THe north is also brought completely down by the Lions.

But the division makes up for 6 games out of 16. There are more games agaisnt two pretty easy divisions than against those teams in the East.

I don't think the Jets are way better than the Bears. Better maybe...but not way better. You can't lose to Oakland, San Fran, and Seattle and be called way better than anyone other than maybe the Lions.

The division is average...but again, thats 6 games.

The remaining 10 games...several were tougher for GB and the North because of how much better the Souther divisons are than what the AFC East had to face in the Western divisions.

 

The youth thing is still there though. They are still the NFL's youngest team.

Part of it starts at QB. Inexperience there has hurt. That is a big part of why I support this decision...Rodgers now has a year under his belt and hopefully uses that and improves.

Safeties have enough experience? Bigby and Rouse are basically 2nd year guys.

Tramon is young.

The Dline that came in when Jenkins and KGB go out.

The Oline is getting there...RBs are young.

And so on.

Its not all the youth...Im just saying I hope that is what the inconsistency has been about. Im not banking totally on that though.

And the depth is young...and was needed this year too with the amount of injuries.

 

When the Packers only have to get to 9 or 10 wins a year to win the Div, when other team have 10 wins and won't make the playoffs, thats what mean. The shedulae changes each year, but the Packers are lucky enough to play in a Div where the best QB they face is Kyle Ortan, how many other teams get to say that. The Vikings and Bears are totally average. They have had teh luxery of a weak Div for a long time, there are no Steeler or Colts in this Div where each year will be a fight for the Div. And not only did they not take advantage of this.....but they are 5-10 and didn't even give the Division a run. This will be the 2nd losing season since Favre came in. I wsn't expecting SB, but to not even give the Division a run when you have teh Vikings and Bears... Its just pathetic. If this team isn't greatly improved next year, there is no way TT should have a job. He has had enough time by then, and the Division hasn't improved at all. This season was a joke to say the least.

[listen2me 23 1,576]

And I don't think they are the youngest team in the league anymore, could be wrong.

 

But who is young? I consider a 3 year player a guy who should be entering his Prime. 2 full seasons under his belt and ready for a breakout year.

 

Seriously who is that young?

 

Rodgers- 1st year starting been around for 4

Grant- what is he 28?

OGs- all 2 3 and 4 year players, that is enough experience in this day and age.

Tackles are vets

Kampman vet

Jenkins vet

Pickett vet

Jolly- young

Montgumery- young

Hawk- should be entering Prime

Barnett- vet

Popps 3 years

Chiller- vet

Al- vet

Chuck- vet

Tramon (nickle CB) not a rookie at least, but young

Nick Collins- Prime

Bigby/Rouse- Not rookie, Bigby say a lot of time last year, but young.

 

So out of players getting playing good playing time this year, 5 are young with a inexperienced QB. Not exactly enough to say they are still real young. The backups are what makes this team young on paper, with the avg age of a player being calculated.

[Sweetness_34 0]

Gotta love seeing fudgepacker fans in denial....5-10 = SUCCKKKKK

 

I said it before this season began. Last year the packers were lucky to have literally no real injury and got every lucky break (Eagles game where Eagles muffed punts; Denver game where Denver shld have won in regular time etc); this year they got exposed for what they are .... a horrible team with a horrible GM and horrible coach, all of of whom are in over their heads full of egos who think they know everything.

 

Oh, and they may be young as an average, but their CBs (Woodson; Al Harris); Donald Driver; Barnett; Clifton; Tauscher are not really young.

[listen2me 23 1,576]

Gotta love seeing fudgepacker fans in denial....5-10 = SUCCKKKKK

 

I said it before this season began. Last year the packers were lucky to have literally no real injury and got every lucky break (Eagles game where Eagles muffed punts; Denver game where Denver shld have won in regular time etc); this year they got exposed for what they are .... a horrible team with a horrible GM and horrible coach, all of of whom are in over their heads full of egos who think they know everything.

 

Oh, and they may be young as an average, but their CBs (Woodson; Al Harris); Donald Driver; Barnett; Clifton; Tauscher are not really young.

 

You go get excited about that possible playoff birth, and that promising QB you have. That makes how many good QBs in the last 100 years...hold on let me get out my fingers...

[Sho Nuff 720]

When the Packers only have to get to 9 or 10 wins a year to win the Div, when other team have 10 wins and won't make the playoffs, thats what mean. The shedulae changes each year, but the Packers are lucky enough to play in a Div where the best QB they face is Kyle Ortan, how many other teams get to say that. The Vikings and Bears are totally average. They have had teh luxery of a weak Div for a long time, there are no Steeler or Colts in this Div where each year will be a fight for the Div. And not only did they not take advantage of this.....but they are 5-10 and didn't even give the Division a run. This will be the 2nd losing season since Favre came in. I wsn't expecting SB, but to not even give the Division a run when you have teh Vikings and Bears... Its just pathetic. If this team isn't greatly improved next year, there is no way TT should have a job. He has had enough time by then, and the Division hasn't improved at all. This season was a joke to say the least.

 

And if the Packers beat the Lions they are 4-2 in the division.

It takes more than just winning in the division to be good is what I am saying.

You are going on and on about the division...but it amounts to 6 games. You have to win out of the division (unless the rest of your division just completely blows like the NFC West).

And the division has improved a little. The Vikings are better than last year...the Bears also improved a little bit.