Packers 34, Bears 3

[Puddleglum 0]

It was 8 drives. And yeah, only two punts. Three more ended on missed FG, interception, and downs. Two of your three scoring drives started in GB territory. A few more drives could have easily ended in picks and you know it. Get used to it, the Detroit game told the same story about Mike Martz offenses - lots of nice yards and drives, too many sacks, turnovers, and blown opportunities.

 

It was a good win for you guys and anyone would & should be excited about 3-0 atop their division after beating a big rival, but I can't really fathom beating your chests about your offense right now.

[IMMensaMind 459]

It was 8 drives. And yeah, only two punts. Three more ended on missed FG, interception, and downs. Two of your three scoring drives started in GB territory. A few more drives could have easily ended in picks and you know it. Get used to it, the Detroit game told the same story about Mike Martz offenses - lots of nice yards and drives, too many sacks, turnovers, and blown opportunities.

 

It was a good win for you guys and anyone would & should be excited about 3-0 atop their division after beating a big rival, but I can't really fathom beating your chests about your offense right now.

 

^^^this.

 

Seems like quite a bit of Bear fan "karma" is getting built up in here. We'll see how it comes down as the season progresses...

[DrJ 0]

It was 8 drives. And yeah, only two punts. Three more ended on missed FG, interception, and downs. Two of your three scoring drives started in GB territory. A few more drives could have easily ended in picks and you know it. Get used to it, the Detroit game told the same story about Mike Martz offenses - lots of nice yards and drives, too many sacks, turnovers, and blown opportunities.

 

It was a good win for you guys and anyone would & should be excited about 3-0 atop their division after beating a big rival, but I can't really fathom beating your chests about your offense right now.

 

I didn't beat my chest about the Bears offense. I said that the Green Bay defense was horrible, and they were. The fact that it was a crappy QB with no OL in their fans' estimation that made them look so stupid and went up and down the field all day makes them look even more horrible.

 

I'm guessing you're a Packer fan, if so your school system in the sticks does excuse you being behind a little, but try and keep up.

[Sho Nuff 719]

I didn't beat my chest about the Bears offense. I said that the Green Bay defense was horrible, and they were. The fact that it was a crappy QB with no OL in their fans' estimation that made them look so stupid and went up and down the field all day makes them look even more horrible.

 

I'm guessing you're a Packer fan, if so your school system in the sticks does excuse you being behind a little, but try and keep up.

 

The Green Bay defense held a team to 13 points and several times with a short field. The penalties sucked...but overall, they overcame that too to give up all of 13 points.

You have an interesting definition of horrible

[DrJ 0]

The Green Bay defense held a team to 13 points and several times with a short field. The penalties sucked...but overall, they overcame that too to give up all of 13 points.

You have an interesting definition of horrible

 

Forcing 2 punts all game and having the other team on your goal line all 2nd half = horrible. The fact that much of that didn't amount to points = fortunate. HTH.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Forcing 2 punts all game and having the other team on your goal line all 2nd half = horrible. The fact that much of that didn't amount to points = fortunate. HTH.

 

Road game, gave up 13 points and actually held them from scoring at your goalline is not horrible.

Having the team near your goalline was not all on the D...talk to the offense and the special teams on that.

 

Its not to say it was great defense, the mistakes pretty much show that it was not. But it was not horrible D. For that see the Pitt, Arizona, Minnesota games from last year.

 

As a defense, if you hold a team who had good field position all night to 13 points and you still lose, the other parts of the team certainly let you down.

[DrJ 0]

Road game, gave up 13 points and actually held them from scoring at your goalline is not horrible.

Having the team near your goalline was not all on the D...talk to the offense and the special teams on that.

 

Its not to say it was great defense, the mistakes pretty much show that it was not. But it was not horrible D. For that see the Pitt, Arizona, Minnesota games from last year.

 

As a defense, if you hold a team who had good field position all night to 13 points and you still lose, the other parts of the team certainly let you down.

 

Or it could be that the Bears made mistakes of their own and didn't play their best game, and the Packers D was fortunate that the offense isn't firing on all cylinders yet as to not expose them. Missing a FG and dropping a TD that was in the TE's hands are mistakes the Packers D had nothing to do with and were just fortunate to benefit from. They played horrible and were fortunate to even be in the game.

[Puddleglum 0]

I didn't beat my chest about the Bears offense. I said that the Green Bay defense was horrible, and they were. The fact that it was a crappy QB with no OL in their fans' estimation that made them look so stupid and went up and down the field all day makes them look even more horrible.

 

I'm guessing you're a Packer fan, if so your school system in the sticks does excuse you being behind a little, but try and keep up.

 

Okay, so you're not saying the Chicago O looked good, you're saying the Green Bay D looked bad. My apologies. Setting the punt return aside (Yes, ST are an important aspect of football, but we are talking about defense here), let us look at the facts:

 

Chicago average starting field position was on their 40 yard line.

Chicago offense had 8 possesions.

Chicago offense scored 13 points.

 

You can keep telling yourself that the Chicago offense went "up and down the field" and the Green Bay defense looked bad, but what I am trying to tell you is this is what you get with a Mike Martz offense. Get used to it. You get lots of drives and yards and whiz-bang plays, but in the end you are drowning in sacks, turnovers, and blown opportunities unless the calendar says 1999. So far it has been just enough to win games but I would have concerns if I were you. I have taken the liberty of compliling some statistics on Mike Martz led offenses 2001-2008.

 

 

Sacks: 46,43,50,46,63,54,55

Sack Rank: 05,04,05,06,02,03,01

 

Turnovers: 45,39,39,37,38,37,35

Turnover Rank: 01,01,04,03,03,03,01

 

That is through three different teams and at least 6 different quarterbacks (Pro-tip: most of the QB changes were due to injury). It's what you might call a trend. So far he is looking to have his BEST SEASON EVER in both categories, coming in at #6 in sacks and #9 in turnovers through three weeks. Let the good times roll! I even found a Bears blog complaining about how Martz is going to get Cutler killed:

 

http://startkyleorton.blogspot.com/2010/01/mike-martz-would-utterly-freaking.html

 

And by the way I'm actually from Virginia, I'm a Green Bay fan by family heritage. Many thanks for your continued patience with my inferior cognitive skills.

[S.D. Jones 0]

And how many unforced penalties?

 

How do these differ from forced penalties?

[Sho Nuff 719]

Or it could be that the Bears made mistakes of their own and didn't play their best game, and the Packers D was fortunate that the offense isn't firing on all cylinders yet as to not expose them. Missing a FG and dropping a TD that was in the TE's hands are mistakes the Packers D had nothing to do with and were just fortunate to benefit from. They played horrible and were fortunate to even be in the game.

 

Missing a long FG that you had to settle for because the defense stopped you.

The drop was as much on the TE as it was on Cutler for throwing it behind him and a pass that was dying to the turf.

But again...they had to try and go for it there even after some mistakes got you down there.

Those breaks will come in and out of every game...but again, saying a defense was horrible when giving up 13 points on the road and having to defend that field position all game is downright idiotic.

No other way to put it.

Horrible and fortunate to be in the game is hilarious.

Are you really that blind and that much of a Bear homer?

[DrJ 0]

Okay, so you're not saying the Chicago O looked good, you're saying the Green Bay D looked bad. My apologies. Setting the punt return aside (Yes, ST are an important aspect of football, but we are talking about defense here), let us look at the facts:

 

Chicago average starting field position was on their 40 yard line.

Chicago offense had 8 possesions.

Chicago offense scored 13 points.

 

You can keep telling yourself that the Chicago offense went "up and down the field" and the Green Bay defense looked bad, but what I am trying to tell you is this is what you get with a Mike Martz offense. Get used to it. You get lots of drives and yards and whiz-bang plays, but in the end you are drowning in sacks, turnovers, and blown opportunities unless the calendar says 1999. So far it has been just enough to win games but I would have concerns if I were you. I have taken the liberty of compliling some statistics on Mike Martz led offenses 2001-2008.

 

 

Sacks: 46,43,50,46,63,54,55

Sack Rank: 05,04,05,06,02,03,01

 

Turnovers: 45,39,39,37,38,37,35

Turnover Rank: 01,01,04,03,03,03,01

 

That is through three different teams and at least 6 different quarterbacks (Pro-tip: most of the QB changes were due to injury). It's what you might call a trend. So far he is looking to have his BEST SEASON EVER in both categories, coming in at #6 in sacks and #9 in turnovers through three weeks. Let the good times roll! I even found a Bears blog complaining about how Martz is going to get Cutler killed:

 

http://startkyleorton.blogspot.com/2010/01/mike-martz-would-utterly-freaking.html

 

And by the way I'm actually from Virginia, I'm a Green Bay fan by family heritage. Many thanks for your continued patience with my inferior cognitive skills.

 

In 99, 00, 01, and 03 their rank in offensive scoring was 1, 1, 1, 2. So despite those sacks and turnovers, you can still score big points in the offense. You can credit 13 points all you want, but much of that is due to Bears mistakes such as dropping a TD in the hands and missing a FG. It didn't have anything to do with the D being not horrible as they allowed the Bears to drive deep into their territory drive after drive after drive.

[Sho Nuff 719]

How do these differ from forced penalties?

 

Forced penalty...something like the holds on Tauscher...forced by the play of another player. Even Woodson's PI as he turned wrong and had to grab Knox (I believe).

 

Unforced...Zombo's roughing the passer. It was not a play by another player that forced him high...it was his own mistake.

Burnett's PI, the WR did not have him beat...it was good coverage up until the point he grabbed his arms, which he did not need to do as he was in position and turning to the ball.

Collins picking up the WR and dropping him adding another 15 yards. Those are "unforced" IMO.

[DrJ 0]

Missing a long FG that you had to settle for because the defense stopped you.

The drop was as much on the TE as it was on Cutler for throwing it behind him and a pass that was dying to the turf.

But again...they had to try and go for it there even after some mistakes got you down there.

Those breaks will come in and out of every game...but again, saying a defense was horrible when giving up 13 points on the road and having to defend that field position all game is downright idiotic.

No other way to put it.

Horrible and fortunate to be in the game is hilarious.

Are you really that blind and that much of a Bear homer?

 

On the FG - yeah, when the defense stopped the Bears after they gained 60 yards on the drive. Considering that was about the best they did all game though, I'll go with you on that one. That was a terrific stop from a defense as horrible as the Packers D was. Their ST even covered the kickoff before that drive, something they seem almost incapable of. High fives all around.

 

On the dropped TD - whether the ball was behind him or not, the point remains that the crappy Packers D had nothing to do with them not scoring 7 on that drive.

[Sho Nuff 719]

On the FG - yeah, when the defense stopped the Bears after they gained 60 yards on the drive. Considering that was about the best they did all game though, I'll go with you on that one. That was a terrific stop from a defense as horrible as the Packers D was. Their ST even covered the kickoff before that drive, something they seem almost incapable of. High fives all around.

 

On the dropped TD - whether the ball was behind him or not, the point remains that the crappy Packers D had nothing to do with them not scoring 7 on that drive.

 

51 yards on the first drive with the missed FG

32 than an INT

26 - punt

-7 - punt

44 - TD

 

Those are the first half drives for the Bears. Yeah, defense was horrible wasn't it?

72 yards - TO on downs

52 - FG

45 - FG

 

There are your 8 drives.

No reasonable person looks at that and comes to the conclusion that the opposing defense was horrible. NONE!!!!!

You are seriously delusional. Did you just forget to log on as sweetness or something?

[Puddleglum 0]

In 99, 00, 01, and 03 their rank in offensive scoring was 1, 1, 1, 2. So despite those sacks and turnovers, you can still score big points in the offense. You can credit 13 points all you want, but much of that is due to Bears mistakes such as dropping a TD in the hands and missing a FG. It didn't have anything to do with the D being not horrible as they allowed the Bears to drive deep into their territory drive after drive after drive.

 

Yeah and the Packers would have had a TD to Finley and an extra FG and won the game 27-20 if not for Tauscher's & Sitton's "mistakes". Julius Peppers isn't any good, it's just that our OL sucks and we kept making "mistakes". See how easy that was? Give me a break.

[DrJ 0]

51 yards on the first drive with the missed FG

32 than an INT

26 - punt

-7 - punt

44 - TD

 

Those are the first half drives for the Bears. Yeah, defense was horrible wasn't it?

72 yards - TO on downs

52 - FG

45 - FG

 

There are your 8 drives.

No reasonable person looks at that and comes to the conclusion that the opposing defense was horrible. NONE!!!!!

You are seriously delusional. Did you just forget to log on as sweetness or something?

 

You neglected to note that the final 5 drives all ended inside the 10 yard line. The yardage is irrelevant, there was no more field to drive on. Anyone that saw the opposing offense inside the 10 yard line 5 consecutive times should conclude the defense was horrible.

[DrJ 0]

Yeah and the Packers would have had a TD to Finley and an extra FG and won the game 27-20 if not for Tauscher's & Sitton's "mistakes". Julius Peppers isn't any good, it's just that our OL sucks and we kept making "mistakes". See how easy that was? Give me a break.

 

Actually, they would have lost 30-27 since we're crediting the Bears with an extra TD and FG. Under any scenario, your Packers and their crappy D lose the game. So much for them "dominating" as several previous posters alluded to.

[Puddleglum 0]

Actually, they would have lost 30-27 since we're crediting the Bears with an extra TD and FG. Under any scenario, your Packers and their crappy D lose the game. So much for them "dominating" as several previous posters alluded to.

 

This is not complicated. The point is simply that you can get any result you want by spinning up endless hypothetical fairy tale scenarios. Your case is that the Packer's D is crappy because the Bears got in scoring postion many times, and "should have" scored lots of points if not for a few "mistakes." It relies on hypothetical ifs and buts. Our case is that the Packers D is not crappy, as evidenced by the fact that they held the Bears offense to 13 points. (Points being the only stat in football that actually matters) It does not rely on any imaginary scenarios, it is what actually happened. You are free to have the last word, as I am not going to comment on this particular debate any more.

[Sho Nuff 719]

You neglected to note that the final 5 drives all ended inside the 10 yard line. The yardage is irrelevant, there was no more field to drive on. Anyone that saw the opposing offense inside the 10 yard line 5 consecutive times should conclude the defense was horrible.

I didn't neglect it.

They ended up with FGs after getting a short field.

But you call that just terrible crappy defense.

Seriously man, its ok to say Green Bay can play some defense.

 

Green Bay did more against Chicago's D with poor field position and I still say Chicago played a very good defensive ball game.

But for some reason, you just can't admit it...why is that?

[Walter34 3]

This is not complicated. The point is simply that you can get any result you want by spinning up endless hypothetical fairy tale scenarios. Your case is that the Packer's D is crappy because the Bears got in scoring postion many times, and "should have" scored lots of points if not for a few "mistakes." It relies on hypothetical ifs and buts. Our case is that the Packers D is not crappy, as evidenced by the fact that they held the Bears offense to 13 points. (Points being the only stat in football that actually matters) It does not rely on any imaginary scenarios, it is what actually happened. You are free to have the last word, as I am not going to comment on this particular debate any more.

 

I'll just jump back into the fray for a moment to address your post. You are correct above, but are missing what Dr J is driving at. There has been several posters who have claimed that GB "dominated" the game. This is based I suppose on a cherry picked perspective that looks at Rodger's stats and 18 penalties and includes the ifs, buts, if onlys and hypotheticals that you speak of. The only stat that matters is points as you clearly indicate and GB certainly did not dominate in that respect.

 

Both teams moved the ball between the 20s and did not score as effectively for many reasons - penalties, mistakes, tight red zone D, whatever.

 

The game was close in score, was competitive and neither dominated in any way. The two best players were Rodgers and Peppers - one on each side. Cutler played well, not atrocious by standing in against a hard rush and getting knocked around and still standing in there. He had some off throws, but some were also caused by the penalties or circumstances out of his control.

 

In some posts, GB fans are stating that Rodgers was flawless. In others, the same posters are saying that the defence was let down by the O and special teams. In the end, its all hypotheticals, ifs and buts.

 

Bears won by 3 - :woot: done. This is not complicated.

[edjr 5,567]

Bears fans are completely delusional

[Puddleglum 0]

I'll just jump back into the fray for a moment to address your post. You are correct above, but are missing what Dr J is driving at. There has been several posters who have claimed that GB "dominated" the game. This is based I suppose on a cherry picked perspective that looks at Rodger's stats and 18 penalties and includes the ifs, buts, if onlys and hypotheticals that you speak of. The only stat that matters is points as you clearly indicate and GB certainly did not dominate in that respect.

 

Both teams moved the ball between the 20s and did not score as effectively for many reasons - penalties, mistakes, tight red zone D, whatever.

 

The game was close in score, was competitive and neither dominated in any way. The two best players were Rodgers and Peppers - one on each side. Cutler played well, not atrocious by standing in against a hard rush and getting knocked around and still standing in there. He had some off throws, but some were also caused by the penalties or circumstances out of his control.

 

In some posts, GB fans are stating that Rodgers was flawless. In others, the same posters are saying that the defence was let down by the O and special teams. In the end, its all hypotheticals, ifs and buts.

 

Bears won by 3 - :woot: done. This is not complicated.

This is a post I can agree with on all accounts.

[Sho Nuff 719]

I'll just jump back into the fray for a moment to address your post. You are correct above, but are missing what Dr J is driving at. There has been several posters who have claimed that GB "dominated" the game. This is based I suppose on a cherry picked perspective that looks at Rodger's stats and 18 penalties and includes the ifs, buts, if onlys and hypotheticals that you speak of. The only stat that matters is points as you clearly indicate and GB certainly did not dominate in that respect.

 

Both teams moved the ball between the 20s and did not score as effectively for many reasons - penalties, mistakes, tight red zone D, whatever.

 

The game was close in score, was competitive and neither dominated in any way. The two best players were Rodgers and Peppers - one on each side. Cutler played well, not atrocious by standing in against a hard rush and getting knocked around and still standing in there. He had some off throws, but some were also caused by the penalties or circumstances out of his control.

 

In some posts, GB fans are stating that Rodgers was flawless. In others, the same posters are saying that the defence was let down by the O and special teams. In the end, its all hypotheticals, ifs and buts.

 

Bears won by 3 - :woot: done. This is not complicated.

 

I think there was one fan who said they dominated.

[DrJ 0]

I think there was one fan who said they dominated.

 

Which was the one fan I responsed to before don, and then you jumped on it and you've talked in circles for pages debating my response.

[Sho Nuff 719]

Which was the one fan I responsed to before don, and then you jumped on it and you've talked in circles for pages debating my response.

No circles needed.

Its one thing to disagree with the dominated thing...its another to call the defense horrible and crappy. That part just makes even your Bear fan buddies on this board laugh at you.

[DrJ 0]

No circles needed.

Its one thing to disagree with the dominated thing...its another to call the defense horrible and crappy. That part just makes even your Bear fan buddies on this board laugh at you.

 

I don't have Bear fan buddies on this board. Apparantly the fact that I don't even post here anymore with exception of this thread seems to escape you and swamp puppy, the two dumbest NFC North fans there are.

[Walter34 3]

I don't have Bear fan buddies on this board.

 

:sadbanana:

[DrJ 0]

:sadbanana:

 

Sorry Walt, you're good people even if you are Canadian. But I got tired of the quality of poster here so I've moved on to the "other bored". I still get to see Sho making himself look stupid every now and then there too.

[Sho Nuff 719]

I don't have Bear fan buddies on this board. Apparantly the fact that I don't even post here anymore with exception of this thread seems to escape you and swamp puppy, the two dumbest NFC North fans there are.

 

A guy calling a defense that held another team to 13 points despite the opposing team having good field position is calling someone else dumb.

Hilarious.

[DrJ 0]

I guess the Packers didn't take I-94 on their way back to Wisconsin. Reason was that they couldn't stand to see six more flags.

[Puddleglum 0]

I guess the Packers didn't take I-94 on their way back to Wisconsin. Reason was that they couldn't stand to see six more flags.

Well played.

[donhaas 18]

It was a repeat of the Oct. 7, 2007 game where the Packers completely dominated da Bears (like 450-250 total offense) but lost because of stupid mistakes and turnovers....

Bears fans like Dr. J came out of the woodwork and crowed like crazy but in the end everybody knew what was going to happen:

 

Packers 13-3

Bears 7-9

 

It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Packers were clearly the better team then and it doesn't now...

 

I have about 100 Bear fan friends and not one of them will put their money where their mouth is on the rematch or even overall final records for the team.... They did go through the Illinois School Systems (which, contrary to more DrJ misinformation, are clearly inferior to Wisconsin in EVERY major academic category) but Bears fans aren't completely dumb....

 

But if anybody here is feeling frisky, we can set this up with our paypal accounts... Dr.J?

 

Otherwise, it's just mindless jib-jabbering..... It will be funny when I bring it all back later in the season when the Bears are 8-8 and Dr. J is helping Sampdog tuck in his son...

 

 

 

 

Sincerely.... congrats to the Bears.... Great win .... you won your Super Bowl...

 

As for real Super Bowls, you always have Springsteen to ease your mind

[DrJ 0]

It was a repeat of the Oct. 7, 2007 game where the Packers completely dominated da Bears (like 450-250 total offense) but lost because of stupid mistakes and turnovers....

Bears fans like Dr. J came out of the woodwork and crowed like crazy but in the end everybody knew what was going to happen:

 

Packers 13-3

Bears 7-9

 

It didn't take a rocket scientist to see that the Packers were clearly the better team then and it doesn't now...

 

I have about 100 Bear fan friends and not one of them will put their money where their mouth is on the rematch or even overall final records for the team.... They did go through the Illinois School Systems (which, contrary to more DrJ misinformation, are clearly inferior to Wisconsin in EVERY major academic category) but Bears fans aren't completely dumb....

 

But if anybody here is feeling frisky, we can set this up with our paypal accounts... Dr.J?

 

Otherwise, it's just mindless jib-jabbering..... It will be funny when I bring it all back later in the season when the Bears are 8-8 and Dr. J is helping Sampdog tuck in his son...

 

 

 

 

Sincerely.... congrats to the Bears.... Great win .... you won your Super Bowl...

 

As for real Super Bowls, you always have Springsteen to ease your mind

 

Tell ya what don, I'll come up to Lambeau and witness the frozen tundra on January 2nd. Tickets look pretty cheap this year since all of the Packers fans are either laid off collecting food stamps or realize they don't have much of a chance in the game. If you want to meet up there, I'll be happy to make a wager on the game. So when the Packers are already out of playoff contention and the game is meaningless for them, you'll at least have a chance to win something that day.

[swamp dog 0]

jesus christ. shut the fock up already.

 

the bears came away with zero points TWICE on the 1-yard line...they should have won that game by three focking touchdowns.

 

enough of the baby-ass excuse making. again, man the fock up and take it like an adult already. and move on.

 

your patsy first-month schedule continues this week at home against detroit. rah rah.

 

now shut the fock up.

[Sho Nuff 719]

jesus christ. shut the fock up already.

 

the bears came away with zero points TWICE on the 1-yard line...they should have won that game by three focking touchdowns.

 

enough of the baby-ass excuse making. again, man the fock up and take it like an adult already. and move on.

 

your patsy first-month schedule continues this week at home against detroit. rah rah.

 

now shut the fock up.

 

Whats funny is they play the near identical schedule as Detroit...except, Detroit does not get to play a team as bad as the Lions ttwice.

 

Hah!!!

[donhaas 18]

I enjoy watching figure skating because I usually give up on my team and watch that by week 4.... Brian Boitano is my favorite!!!

 

My Detroit Lions have had 7 winning seasons in 55 years, yet every pre-season I start a thread "DRAFT ALL LIONS.... LOOKING AWESOME IN CAMP THIS YEAR!!!!"

 

Brett Favre and Aaron Rodgers are light years better than anybody in the history of the Detroit Lions.... by far... yet I can't stop talking about how much they suck.... I'm kinda delusional in that way...

 

Joey Harrington is looking extremely confident.... going to have a monster season!

Matt Millen is a draft guru!

 

I enjoy cack a great deal but there are limited gay bars up here in the U.P.

 

 

 

OK, then.... thanks for chiming in

 

Good luck with all that

[donhaas 18]

Tell ya what don, I'll come up to Lambeau and witness the frozen tundra on January 2nd. Tickets look pretty cheap this year since all of the Packers fans are either laid off collecting food stamps or realize they don't have much of a chance in the game. If you want to meet up there, I'll be happy to make a wager on the game. So when the Packers are already out of playoff contention and the game is meaningless for them, you'll at least have a chance to win something that day.

 

Deal... I'm not a d!ck in real life...

 

Just ask STD.... he's met me and he literally had the time of his life

[DrJ 0]

Forced penalty...something like the holds on Tauscher...forced by the play of another player. Even Woodson's PI as he turned wrong and had to grab Knox (I believe).

 

Unforced...Zombo's roughing the passer. It was not a play by another player that forced him high...it was his own mistake.

Burnett's PI, the WR did not have him beat...it was good coverage up until the point he grabbed his arms, which he did not need to do as he was in position and turning to the ball.

Collins picking up the WR and dropping him adding another 15 yards. Those are "unforced" IMO.

 

I'll consider that a very informed opinion. After leading the league in penalty yards in 2009 and getting off to another great start in 2010, I trust you Packers fans know an awful lot about penalties. You've even got the blame the ref game down to a science.

[DrJ 0]

Deal... I'm not a d!ck in real life...

 

Just ask STD.... he's met me and he literally had the time of his life

 

 

Wondering if I should buy my tickets now, or wait for the Packers to drop a few games and have the price really bottom out.

[Perennial Contender 18]

Go Vikings!!!