jaxjag 43 Posted December 31, 2009 What the crap do the Steelers have to do with anything?0 points and 67 yards in the first half. How in the flying fock is some of that not the QB's fault? 10-6 to 12-4 (maybe) is not the same as the jump from 13-3 to 15-1. And when you take schedule into consideration...the jump is really not that big. Favre has done that. Meanwhile ADP has dropped from 1760 yards to 1329 yards. Project him for 100 yards this weekend and you still get over a 200 yard difference and a decent drop in yards per carry. More TDs though. Favre opened up some things...but I kept hearing how much more Peterson could do when teams could not just focus on him....but nobody is seeing it. Is it all the line? Is it all Peterson? Or is some of it the focus is more on Favre now? Putting up better stats is not the same thing as making the "TEAM" better(notice the quotes and caps around that word for emphasis). The Steelers? Just pointing out the flaw in your fixation on a portion of the game (the first half) rather than the entire game. Peterson? He has jumped from 10 to 17 TDs (and counting). I think I'd take that. His yardage is down, but so is his YPC and touches. A couple fewer long runs maybe? Maybe fewer carries has its blessings? Again, I think I'd take 1400+ yards from my RB and less wear and tear to become a more well rounded team. In "theory"... any loss can be attributed to the entire team because after all.... you lost the game. Does that make you feel better? Good, you can tuck yourself into those cute green and yellow PJs now. I'm done on the topic. Your obviously too obsessed with the Packers to be objective. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted December 31, 2009 Favre destroying your teams defense twice obviously is more enjoyable but getting this type of response from a Packer fan makes that post worthwhile. Given that most Packer fans don't actually know anything about the game of football, that doesn't surprise me. You guys certainly know who wears what number and that you sell out every game no matter what and you won 10 championships in the 40s and 50s when there were 12 teams in the league though so that is more than good enough. You also believe that having Aaron Rodgers on your team despite weaknesses almost everywhere else means your team has a plan and will win for the next 15 years. Brillant. Toss out your 4 jerseys and buy 12 jerseys. All is good now. You guys are even too stupid to realize you lost Harris and Kampman and when you get into the playoffs are going to have 400 yards thrown against you by nearly every offense in the NFC roster and have no shot. And your coach is almost as crappy as ours yet you have Aaron Rodgers so don't worry about it, drink some beer without a shirt on when its 40 below and think positive. It will all work out in the end because our team won one Super Bowl in the last 40 years and yours didn't. We get it. Too funny...you go on whining about how a game that you lost to the Bears...that could cost your team a bye in the playoffs was great...and Packer fans don't know football? We understand football...we understand that losing your 3rd game in the last 4...and a late game in December to Chicago that could have you playing in the first round rather than resting is not a good focking thing. We believe that Rodgers is a very good QB...that the weaknesses you see are not even close to as bad as you think...but you can keep whining about them all you want. 400 yards thrown against us by nearly every offense? Nice try. 205 yards per game passing actually is what the defense is giving up...and oh by the way...the #1 rushing defense in the league through 15 games. We realize we lost Harris and that hurts putting out Bush in coverage more often. But unlike you, we are not dumb enough not to realize that a late round rookie is playing better right now at OLB than Kampman was while he was in there. We get it...you claim to know football...but in reality you are just a fan boy who has no focking clue about the game at all. Which is why you rarely discuss any x's and o's...you just talk mindless trash. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted December 31, 2009 Worst case scenario, Brett let's you guys know by August. Unfortunately for the Vikes, you don't have a guy like Aaron Rodgers waiting to take over in case Brett finally makes up his mind and retires...oh no wait, you've got Tavaris. Unless Brett unretires....again Shh...he does not understand this...because all is well that Brett made their coach, who just got an extension, look foolish. Never mind how that really hurts the team down the stretch and going into next season if and when they don't have a QB. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted December 31, 2009 The Steelers? Just pointing out the flaw in your fixation on a portion of the game (the first half) rather than the entire game. Peterson? He has jumped from 10 to 17 TDs (and counting). I think I'd take that. His yardage is down, but so is his YPC and touches. A couple fewer long runs maybe? Maybe fewer carries has its blessings? Again, I think I'd take 1400+ yards from my RB and less wear and tear to become a more well rounded team. In "theory"... any loss can be attributed to the entire team because after all.... you lost the game. Does that make you feel better? Good, you can tuck yourself into those cute green and yellow PJs now. I'm done on the topic. Your obviously too obsessed with the Packers to be objective. Im not fixated on one half...Im fixated on the fact that getting in a 16-0 hole and putting up 0 points and 67 yards in the first half hurt the team as much (if not more) than any missed XP or fumble in overtime. Just 3 points in the first half and overtime never happens....get it? Of course any loss should be attributed to the team unless one guy just flat out sucked. This was not the case...my point, over and over is that excusing Brett (as you did and keep defending him because of good 2nd half play) is complete ignorant and foolish. Sorry, not sure how that is not objective enough for you to understand that a team getting blanked int he first half may have had something to do with why they lost. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jaxjag 43 Posted December 31, 2009 Im not fixated on one half...Im fixated on the fact that getting in a 16-0 hole and putting up 0 points and 67 yards in the first half hurt the team as much (if not more) than any missed XP or fumble in overtime.Just 3 points in the first half and overtime never happens....get it? Of course any loss should be attributed to the team unless one guy just flat out sucked. This was not the case...my point, over and over is that excusing Brett (as you did and keep defending him because of good 2nd half play) is complete ignorant and foolish. Sorry, not sure how that is not objective enough for you to understand that a team getting blanked int he first half may have had something to do with why they lost. Missed extra point >>>>> not scoring in the first half Fumble in OT >>>>> not scoring in the first half Repeatedly giving Bears good field position with 200+ return yards >>>>> not scoring in the first half Defense allowing 36 points >>>>> not scoring in the first half 300+ yards, 2 TDs, Coming from behind (twice), throwing a clutch 4th down TD to send the game into OT <<<< not scoring in the first half You're right. I'm ignorant. Incidentally, here is the "key stat" from the NFL Game Center: "Five Bears kick-returners averaged 30.6 yards per return and consistently set up Jay Cutler & Co. with good field position and, "sure enough", the overrated - since he left Green Bay - Brett Favre doomed the Vikings to defeat by not scoring in the first half!." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted December 31, 2009 Missed extra point >>>>> not scoring in the first halfFumble in OT >>>>> not scoring in the first half Repeatedly giving Bears good field position with 200+ return yards >>>>> not scoring in the first half Defense allowing 36 points >>>>> not scoring in the first half 300+ yards, 2 TDs, Coming from behind (twice), throwing a clutch 4th down TD to send the game into OT <<<< not scoring in the first half You're right. I'm ignorant. Incidentally, here is the "key stat" from the NFL Game Center: "Five Bears kick-returners averaged 30.6 yards per return and consistently set up Jay Cutler & Co. with good field position and, "sure enough", the overrated - since he left Green Bay - Brett Favre doomed the Vikings to defeat by not scoring in the first half!." Mixed extra point is greater than not scoring in first half? How so? How is gaining 67 yards and not scoring better than a missed XP. You realize by not scoring, turning the ball over, and barely moving the ball they put their D in a bad position right? I doubt it. You try to question me being objective and you can't even see that. OT would not have happened if they had managed just a FG in the first half. HTH... Yup...the return yards hurt...as did the fumble in the first half and the offense barely moving the ball which also put the defense in bad position. And obviously...his 300 yards and 2 TDs was not > than not scoring in the first half...since not scoring in the first half pretty much cost them big time. As did his fumble. But yes, I am right...you are ignorant. Where did I call him overrated? I said he had a great 2nd half. You want to question my objectivity...but you are making stuff up in order to keep arguing. Face it...the inept offense of the first half put that team in a huge hole...and just one score would have made the difference int he game. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter34 3 Posted January 1, 2010 ...since not scoring in the first half pretty much cost them big time. As did his fumble. Question for you - when GB lost to Pittsburgh a couple of weeks back Aaron Rodgers had 8 possessions in the first 3 quarters where GB did not score any points and GB found themselves down 24-14. Did that ineffectiveness cost them big time in the end? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
donhaas 18 Posted January 1, 2010 Question for you - when GB lost to Pittsburgh a couple of weeks back Aaron Rodgers had 8 possessions in the first 3 quarters where GB did not score any points and GB found themselves down 24-14. Did that ineffectiveness cost them big time in the end? Looks like the Packers only had one possession in the third quarter.... I don't think you can count the time running out on them to end the half as a possession. So they were 3 for 6 in moving the ball down the field in the first half. I know you aren't going to count Crosby's missed chip shot field goal against Rodgers.... even you are not that unobjective.... So, yes.... 17 points (should be); a ton of yardage racked up in the first half.... not fantastic, but not terrible It's hardly analagous to being completely shut out in the first half both points and yardage wise.... But I guess I've seen bigger stretches on this board than the comparison you're working.... Still Rodgers finished with over 400 yards and 4 TDs. He scored enough and racked up enough yardage to limit Pitts opportunities much more than Favre did against the Bears. And he didn't hand them the ball on a fumble when nobody touched him... Farve finished pretty good, but he threw a couple of balls right into the hands of the defenders..... if it would have been any other team except the crapass Bears, he would have easily had some picks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter34 3 Posted January 1, 2010 Looks like the Packers only had one possession in the third quarter....I don't think you can count the time running out on them to end the half as a possession. So they were 3 for 6 in moving the ball down the field in the first half. I know you aren't going to count Crosby's missed chip shot field goal against Rodgers.... even you are not that unobjective.... So, yes.... 17 points (should be); a ton of yardage racked up in the first half.... not fantastic, but not terrible It's hardly analagous to being completely shut out in the first half both points and yardage wise.... But I guess I've seen bigger stretches on this board than the comparison you're working.... Still Rodgers finished with over 400 yards and 4 TDs. He scored enough and racked up enough yardage to limit Pitts opportunities much more than Favre did against the Bears. And he didn't hand them the ball on a fumble when nobody touched him... Farve finished pretty good, but he threw a couple of balls right into the hands of the defenders..... if it would have been any other team except the crapass Bears, he would have easily had some picks So you and sho nuff are the same poster - wow! I was looking for a yes or no answer - no need for all the words. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 719 Posted January 1, 2010 Question for you - when GB lost to Pittsburgh a couple of weeks back Aaron Rodgers had 8 possessions in the first 3 quarters where GB did not score any points and GB found themselves down 24-14. Did that ineffectiveness cost them big time in the end? Yes...the slow start by the offense hurt them early on. I thought the playcalling was atrocious...and rodgers was not accurate at all early in that game. He has developed a habit lately of coming out and throwing high when throwing to the outside...something his predecessor used to do long ago as well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
doughboys_2002 11 Posted January 1, 2010 Packers, Vikings, Favre, Rodgers, isn't that really the debate? Cause Favre did his job! He gave the Vikes a chance to win, and as a Purple Jesus lover he lost the game! Along with the horrible ST play! Regardless of who did what in what half, 30 points should be enough to win a game! Rodgers is going to be a great QB in the NFL, as long as the sure up the offensive line and he can remember to throw the ball a little sooner! Favre is still a great QB, he can still play the game! As for the retired, unretired...well that was so overhyped it's retarded, I hated the stupid Favre Watch they had on NFL channel! The reason he flip flopped this season is because he wasn't sure if his arm could hold up! The Vikes kept puching, and Favre's doctors ok'd him to play. Stop hating on him, he is 40 years old and still playing then 80% of QB's in the NFL. I don't like the guy, but I am not going to bash on him unless there is a real reason, and there is not! Get real, a lot of teams pull out games in the second half, yea they could have done a lot of things better, but fumbling the ball was the nail in the coffin! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Walter34 3 Posted January 1, 2010 Yes...the slow start by the offense hurt them early on.I thought the playcalling was atrocious...and rodgers was not accurate at all early in that game. He has developed a habit lately of coming out and throwing high when throwing to the outside...something his predecessor used to do long ago as well. Fair enough - as long as you call it the same across the board. Favre is certainly one of the reasons they lost. He's not the primary reason though, which is the real point. The D was torched by Cutler, both O and D lines were outplayed and the special teams were atrocious. All of these had more to do with the loss than favre. He was however, the primary reason that they even had a shot in the end rather than just getting blown out. For any win or loss, the entire team shares credit and blame to some extent. To focus only on favre is obtuse and hating on a player that left your team. In fact, its just as stupid as putting all of dallas' woes on Romo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remote controller 133 Posted January 1, 2010 So we all agree Favre is a GOD? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joelmrut 4 Posted January 1, 2010 As a fan of a team with no offense, not moving the ball for 30 minutes in the first half can cost your teams wins and make your defense look worse than it actually is. Now with that being said, to blame the lost on just Peterson's fumble is a joke. The Viking wouldn't have needed to go to overtime if the offense had moved the ball in the first half. They didn't even need to score in the first half but just keep the ball out of Chicago hands. But I am sure that is just Childress' fault and not Favre's? Favre wasn't on the field in the first half, not making plays, not fumbling? If you believe putting your team in a hole doesn't contribute to a loss than your are just plain ignorant. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
remote controller 133 Posted January 2, 2010 As a fan of a team with no offense, not moving the ball for 30 minutes in the first half can cost your teams wins and make your defense look worse than it actually is. Now with that being said, to blame the lost on just Peterson's fumble is a joke. The Viking wouldn't have needed to go to overtime if the offense had moved the ball in the first half. They didn't even need to score in the first half but just keep the ball out of Chicago hands. But I am sure that is just Childress' fault and not Favre's? Favre wasn't on the field in the first half, not making plays, not fumbling? If you believe putting your team in a hole doesn't contribute to a loss than your are just plain ignorant. uhhh, what? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dcOne 2 Posted January 2, 2010 Favre had a terrible first half and an excellent 2nd half. The reasons the Vikings lost the game were their defense and AP's fumble, in that order. 30 points against Chicago should win you every game. Nope. It's the QB. Irregardless of whatever else takes place on the field. A QB could throw for 400 yds, 3 tds, 0 INTs, and lose by 2 and the blame should still go on his shoulders. Basically, it comes down to if he was good enough to win the game, he would have thrown for a few more yards, and/or another TD. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
