How's the Packer decision to go with Rodgers looking now? (1 Viewer)

[zDragon]

Wow. Didn't realize until I was reading the Packer site they did not get a 3rd down conversion until the fourth quarter.

Who cares? You can keep spewing the nonsense, or you can look at it realistically. Green Bay scored 21 points when they didn't play all that great offensivley.The defense gave up the most yards to an opposing offense since 1993. Additionally, just like every other game this season, the defense could not get a stop when needed. They had Houston pinned at their own three with little time left in the game. If you can't keep them from scoring in that situation, you never will.

If you'd like to continue to point fingers at the offense, feel free. Of course, you're very wrong about this one.

Seven of the points were after the defense handed them the ball on the 23. Lets not forget all the other turn-overs between special teams and defense. That kept them in the game when they should have been blown out.Why are you focusing on yards and not points. Is 24 points the most they've given up since 1993? Are you telling me there incapable of winning since the Defense gives up points. Funny the Texans won and they gave up 21.

Funny the Texans defense gives up more points per game and won.

Funny the Saints give up more points but have a winning record.

Funny the Cardinals give up about the same but have a better record.

QUARTERBACK AARON RODGERS:

(on how frustrating the close losses are) "It's disappointing. We had a chance to win. It's kind of gone the same script. We start slow, wait for somebody to make a play. Somebody does, then we start turning it on on the offensive side of the ball, get the ball in good position, have an opportunity to win the game and we don't. So that's probably the most frustrating part.

Seems to back up my statements pretty well of inconsistency on offense needing to be addressed. Of course this is only Rodgers saying this.

You can't be serious with this. Owen Daniels fumbled going into the end zone. Brown missed a 41 yard field goal. Slaton fumbled inside the Packer 18. There's a reason Houston only put up 24 points, it's because they fumbled and missed a field goal.I'm focusing on yards because it's frigging 549 yards of offense. Good defenses do not give up 549 yards of offense.

Or if points really is the measure, as you claim, how do you explain giving up 51 to New Orleans?

This defense is putrid.

The offense, whether less efficient or not, is putting up enough points to win games.

You don't think the 10% 3rd down conversions mattered in that number. Sure the defense didn't play well but the offense played worse. A +3 turn-over advantage should have been a blow-out.The texans D is ranked 26th and terrible yet the Packers offense can only get 10% 3rd down conversions. 17% below the Lions on the year. One of the scores came off a Defensive interception that but them on the Texan 23. Other wise I doubt that score happens.

The Packers D is ranked 22nd and the Texans manage to win despite turn-over after turn-over.

The Texans are average 23.5 points per game this year. So the Pack defense gave up only .5 points more than the Texans average for the year. A putrid defense generally pads that number up quite a bit.

Yeah. I admitted the defense played badly in the 51 point debacle.

Lets see what A. Rodgers has to say from Saints post game

"In a game like this, you have to take care of the ball. But in the second half we just didn't do that. This game is all about limiting your turnovers and your production in the red zone. If I'm going to throw 3 interceptions, you are not going to win." "

See he manned up just like he did after the Texans game. Shows he has a lot to offer as he matures at the QB position.The defense did play badly but the offense disappeared in the second half even Mccarthy only mentioned the first half for the offense playing well.

To bad you can't accept the defense has not had as big a drop-off even with injuries as you imply by calling them putrid. I also posted notes where in several game the defense kept them in the close one and they still lost.

Just so you know where I'm coming from the Lions Defense is putrid. The packers is not. The Lions offense is putrid the Packers is not but they did not even meet the Lions 3rd conversion rate which says a lot.

Do you think Rodgers would blame it on the defense?And too bad you cannot accept the defense has had a big dropoff.

You posted notes...great...3 sentences about a few games. Yup...that proves your point.

LOL.

The Lions offense also put up points on the Packer D after the offense came out strong in the first half.

So what proof do you need. You said I was the one with my blinders on. You won't take detailed stats or post game comments from the team itself. Why accept something that's not true.

Once again you write off comments from the coach himself. Your blinded by the fact the defense has done more good than you willing to accept.

 

[sho nuff]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/35779464.html

In his first season, the Packers ranked 12th in yards allowed and 25th in points allowed. In '07, they ranked 11th in yards and sixth in points.

This year, the Packers have fallen to 23rd in yards (346.2 per game) and 22nd in points (24.5 per game).

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/35742109.html

Well, we had plenty of corrections to go around. You could start with the run game defense. There were times where we didn't get to the right gap, our tackling wasn't what it needed to be. The pass defense, the pass rush did not factor and our pass defense was put in tough situations and they (the Texans) won the one-on-one routes, particularly in third downs. If you just want to take the third-down statistics as a whole, it's really the case of one side getting it done and the other side not. We had the one-on-ones on our third downs on offense. We were 3rd and 1-5 seven times if I recall correctly and we were 1 out of 7. I mean, those are favorable down and distances that we expect to win week in and week out that we did not. They converted theirs. Their ability convert third downs and explosive games I thought were the two biggest factors in the game.

Yes...he mentions the offense...but also the D.And in the context of this thread...the decision to go with Rodgers vs. Favre...not all of those 3rd downs are on the QB play either.

Especially with Rodgers and the 2008 Packers numbers on 3rd vs. 2007.

 

[sho nuff]

So what proof do you need. You said I was the one with my blinders on. You won't take detailed stats or post game comments from the team itself. Why accept something that's not true.Once again you write off comments from the coach himself. Your blinded by the fact the defense has done more good than you willing to accept.

Proof? Something that actually refutes the points per game, rushing yards per game, and rushing TDs given up this year.Something that shows me how watching this team play defense and seeing it being worse than last season.Partial post game comments where a coach says they played ok (and I just posted where he is answering questions about the struggling defense and an article all about the struggling defense) is not saying they are good now is it. Nor is it saying they are not worse than last season.I don't write off the comments. Im saying you are posting 3-4 sentences he said after a game and taking that is all he said on the topics.Im not blinded by anything...this defense is not good right now. Its worse than last year. That is not just my opinion.

 

[PizzaDeliveryGuy]

at this thread.

ShoNuff, quit taking the bait. There is no way that any one in their right mind would blame the Packer's season on Rodgers. It is obvious trolling.

 

[zDragon]

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/packers/35779464.html

In his first season, the Packers ranked 12th in yards allowed and 25th in points allowed. In '07, they ranked 11th in yards and sixth in points.

This year, the Packers have fallen to 23rd in yards (346.2 per game) and 22nd in points (24.5 per game).

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/35742109.html

Well, we had plenty of corrections to go around. You could start with the run game defense. There were times where we didn't get to the right gap, our tackling wasn't what it needed to be. The pass defense, the pass rush did not factor and our pass defense was put in tough situations and they (the Texans) won the one-on-one routes, particularly in third downs. If you just want to take the third-down statistics as a whole, it's really the case of one side getting it done and the other side not. We had the one-on-ones on our third downs on offense. We were 3rd and 1-5 seven times if I recall correctly and we were 1 out of 7. I mean, those are favorable down and distances that we expect to win week in and week out that we did not. They converted theirs. Their ability convert third downs and explosive games I thought were the two biggest factors in the game.

Yes...he mentions the offense...but also the D.And in the context of this thread...the decision to go with Rodgers vs. Favre...not all of those 3rd downs are on the QB play either.

Especially with Rodgers and the 2008 Packers numbers on 3rd vs. 2007.

Terrible stat.I never have blamed it all on the defense. You like to use that as a diversion to the facts the defense is not MUCH worse than last year.

The defense had them in the game and they did not pull it off in the end. Pure and simple.

I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

 

[sho nuff]

Only it is much worse than last year...and everyone on this board sees that except you.

Only in your mind is a team going from 6th in points allowed to 22nd and 11th in yards allowed to 23rd not much worse.

Meanwhile, the offense was 4th in points last year and 4th this year. 2nd in yards last year 11th this year.

I will take the advice and finally just let it go with you. Its impossible to get through to you.

 

[zDragon]

Hey...Tampa gave up almost 300 yards rushing last night...but I bet they only lost because their offense right?

Out of curiosity what is your point with this?The Tampa D did not play up to it's ability. It also shows us that the Panthers offense is very good and can even put up big numbers on the #5 defense in points scored.It also drives home the fact that the Packer defense is not as bad as some make it out to be. The Panthers scored 35 on the Pack and 38 on the #5 defense in points allowed (18 p/game).The terrible and MUCH WORSE packers defense allowed 128yds and 4.7 yds per carry while the #5 defense allowed 299 and 8.1 yds per carry. I guess you can make the point that the Buccaneers are a terrible defense and much worse than last year.I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

 

[ScottyFargo]

I declare zDragon the winner, the quotes coming directly from Rodgers and McCarthy after the x# of games he posted clearly point out that the defense has time and again put the team in a position to win, and Rodgers' led offense has been unable to capitalize on that.

Of the five opportunities where Rodgers could have saved the game, I believe Favre could have won 3. Of the 5 games that the Packers have won this year, I believe Favre's poor play would have impacted the team into losing 1. This is would make their record on the year 7-6, and would put them still in contention to win the division, unlike now where they have to Pray that they win out and the Vikings lose out.

 

[zDragon]

Only it is much worse than last year...and everyone on this board sees that except you.Only in your mind is a team going from 6th in points allowed to 22nd and 11th in yards allowed to 23rd not much worse.Meanwhile, the offense was 4th in points last year and 4th this year. 2nd in yards last year 11th this year.I will take the advice and finally just let it go with you. Its impossible to get through to you.

Once again your stuck on one stat. Seems that's what you keep accusing me off. The stat your using be impacted by a lot more than just the Defense which I have pointed out with McCarthy quotes. Like giving the other team a shorter field to play on (Mccarthy mentioned this in one of my posts). The s/los for the defense went from 4 to 28th in the league.You also forgot to mention that the offense has dropped in every other stat where the defense has improved. You also forget that of the points scored 49 of those are from the defense directly. How many points are indirectly from the Defense.You pick one number and do not focus on the hidden game. That is ok some people just look at the game in a lot more detail and realize what goes underneath the surface. McCarthy mentions a lot of that being an issue in some of the game quotes I posted. I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Only it is much worse than last year...and everyone on this board sees that except you.Only in your mind is a team going from 6th in points allowed to 22nd and 11th in yards allowed to 23rd not much worse.Meanwhile, the offense was 4th in points last year and 4th this year. 2nd in yards last year 11th this year.I will take the advice and finally just let it go with you. Its impossible to get through to you.

Once again your stuck on one stat. Seems that's what you keep accusing me off. The stat your using be impacted by a lot more than just the Defense which I have pointed out with McCarthy quotes. Like giving the other team a shorter field to play on (Mccarthy mentioned this in one of my posts). The s/los for the defense went from 4 to 28th in the league.You also forgot to mention that the offense has dropped in every other stat where the defense has improved. You also forget that of the points scored 49 of those are from the defense directly. How many points are indirectly from the Defense.You pick one number and do not focus on the hidden game. That is ok some people just look at the game in a lot more detail and realize what goes underneath the surface. McCarthy mentions a lot of that being an issue in some of the game quotes I posted. I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

this post brings up a point i would like to discuss.lets say you have a defense that gives up 20 points a game, but gets you a return for TD every game. How can you calculate the net effect of that defense?It is certainly not fair to just deduct those points from the offense, because there is a chance that they would have scored had it not been returned for a TD.It is also not fair to rate the defense as giving up 20 pts/game. Any thoughts?

 

[zDragon]

Only it is much worse than last year...and everyone on this board sees that except you.Only in your mind is a team going from 6th in points allowed to 22nd and 11th in yards allowed to 23rd not much worse.Meanwhile, the offense was 4th in points last year and 4th this year. 2nd in yards last year 11th this year.I will take the advice and finally just let it go with you. Its impossible to get through to you.

Once again your stuck on one stat. Seems that's what you keep accusing me off. The stat your using be impacted by a lot more than just the Defense which I have pointed out with McCarthy quotes. Like giving the other team a shorter field to play on (Mccarthy mentioned this in one of my posts). The s/los for the defense went from 4 to 28th in the league.You also forgot to mention that the offense has dropped in every other stat where the defense has improved. You also forget that of the points scored 49 of those are from the defense directly. How many points are indirectly from the Defense.You pick one number and do not focus on the hidden game. That is ok some people just look at the game in a lot more detail and realize what goes underneath the surface. McCarthy mentions a lot of that being an issue in some of the game quotes I posted. I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

this post brings up a point i would like to discuss.lets say you have a defense that gives up 20 points a game, but gets you a return for TD every game. How can you calculate the net effect of that defense?It is certainly not fair to just deduct those points from the offense, because there is a chance that they would have scored had it not been returned for a TD.It is also not fair to rate the defense as giving up 20 pts/game. Any thoughts?

The easiest way would probably be adding a percentage scored rating to the defense. This number would represent the percentage of overall points the defense scored. Same with the offense on Points given up. Of course that's on the clear example of the scoring a TD.You also need to consider a pick or fumble inside the 20 will more than likely end up with points on the board. You also need to consider the field position battle. If my offense is getting 7 yards a series and punting and the opposing team is getting 25 and punting. They are more likely to eventually score. Special Teams can impact this but the general idea is that the offense is gradually putting the opposing offense in a position to score. It's almost impossible to account for all of that.

 

[zDragon]

The Offense has dropped in pts per drive and Successful drives. So even though they are putting up the same points they are not as efficient as they were last year at scoring or moving the ball.

Pts per drive ranking

2007 2008

5th 12th

Successful drives (Down series resulting in a 1st down or TD)

2007 2008

10th 14th

 

[sho nuff]

Only it is much worse than last year...and everyone on this board sees that except you.Only in your mind is a team going from 6th in points allowed to 22nd and 11th in yards allowed to 23rd not much worse.Meanwhile, the offense was 4th in points last year and 4th this year. 2nd in yards last year 11th this year.I will take the advice and finally just let it go with you. Its impossible to get through to you.

Once again your stuck on one stat. Seems that's what you keep accusing me off. The stat your using be impacted by a lot more than just the Defense which I have pointed out with McCarthy quotes. Like giving the other team a shorter field to play on (Mccarthy mentioned this in one of my posts). The s/los for the defense went from 4 to 28th in the league.You also forgot to mention that the offense has dropped in every other stat where the defense has improved. You also forget that of the points scored 49 of those are from the defense directly. How many points are indirectly from the Defense.You pick one number and do not focus on the hidden game. That is ok some people just look at the game in a lot more detail and realize what goes underneath the surface. McCarthy mentions a lot of that being an issue in some of the game quotes I posted. I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

this post brings up a point i would like to discuss.lets say you have a defense that gives up 20 points a game, but gets you a return for TD every game. How can you calculate the net effect of that defense?It is certainly not fair to just deduct those points from the offense, because there is a chance that they would have scored had it not been returned for a TD.It is also not fair to rate the defense as giving up 20 pts/game. Any thoughts?

Defense and special teams scored points last year too though.

 

[sho nuff]

Of the five opportunities where Rodgers could have saved the game, I believe Favre could have won 3. Of the 5 games that the Packers have won this year, I believe Favre's poor play would have impacted the team into losing 1. This is would make their record on the year 7-6, and would put them still in contention to win the division, unlike now where they have to Pray that they win out and the Vikings lose out.

Could have won 3? Great. Does not mean he would have as you gave him credit for.But even given your supposed 7-6...so, they might squeak in with the division and then what?That is the main issue.If its just squeak in but get beat...they obviously made the right decision (which is what this thread is ultimately about).

 

[zDragon]

Only it is much worse than last year...and everyone on this board sees that except you.Only in your mind is a team going from 6th in points allowed to 22nd and 11th in yards allowed to 23rd not much worse.Meanwhile, the offense was 4th in points last year and 4th this year. 2nd in yards last year 11th this year.I will take the advice and finally just let it go with you. Its impossible to get through to you.

Once again your stuck on one stat. Seems that's what you keep accusing me off. The stat your using be impacted by a lot more than just the Defense which I have pointed out with McCarthy quotes. Like giving the other team a shorter field to play on (Mccarthy mentioned this in one of my posts). The s/los for the defense went from 4 to 28th in the league.You also forgot to mention that the offense has dropped in every other stat where the defense has improved. You also forget that of the points scored 49 of those are from the defense directly. How many points are indirectly from the Defense.You pick one number and do not focus on the hidden game. That is ok some people just look at the game in a lot more detail and realize what goes underneath the surface. McCarthy mentions a lot of that being an issue in some of the game quotes I posted. I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

this post brings up a point i would like to discuss.lets say you have a defense that gives up 20 points a game, but gets you a return for TD every game. How can you calculate the net effect of that defense?It is certainly not fair to just deduct those points from the offense, because there is a chance that they would have scored had it not been returned for a TD.It is also not fair to rate the defense as giving up 20 pts/game. Any thoughts?

Defense and special teams scored points last year too though.

Your point? The questions was how to fairly attribute the scores to an offense or defense. Nothing to do with the Packers. It would be interesting to see though if anyone knows where to find it.I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

 

[zDragon]

I declare zDragon the winner, the quotes coming directly from Rodgers and McCarthy after the x# of games he posted clearly point out that the defense has time and again put the team in a position to win, and Rodgers' led offense has been unable to capitalize on that.

Of the five opportunities where Rodgers could have saved the game, I believe Favre could have won 3. Of the 5 games that the Packers have won this year, I believe Favre's poor play would have impacted the team into losing 1. This is would make their record on the year 7-6, and would put them still in contention to win the division, unlike now where they have to Pray that they win out and the Vikings lose out.

Could have won 3? Great. Does not mean he would have as you gave him credit for.But even given your supposed 7-6...so, they might squeak in with the division and then what?

That is the main issue.

If its just squeak in but get beat...they obviously made the right decision (which is what this thread is ultimately about).

Fixed for completeness.I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

 

[sho nuff]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/90543-f...-07-for-packers

 

[Stinger Ray]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/90543-f...-07-for-packers

So you want to diminish when Packer beat writers like McGinn write something you don't like but you post a link to an article written by some college kid named Zach Kruse?His bio....

I am a junior at UW-Madison, and also the co-Community Leader of the Green Bay Packers here on b/r. I aspire one day to be in the front office of a professional team, or if that doesn't work out, then maybe write nasty articles about those people who took my dream job. Other than that, the Packers, Twins, and Badgers are my favorite teams.

Very funny stuff, sho.

 

[sho nuff]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/90543-f...-07-for-packers

So you want to diminish when Packer beat writers like McGinn write something you don't like but you post a link to an article written by some college kid named Zach Kruse?His bio....

I am a junior at UW-Madison, and also the co-Community Leader of the Green Bay Packers here on b/r. I aspire one day to be in the front office of a professional team, or if that doesn't work out, then maybe write nasty articles about those people who took my dream job. Other than that, the Packers, Twins, and Badgers are my favorite teams.

Very funny stuff, sho.

I posted an article. I did nothing to comment on it.I don't diminish McGinn all that much really. At times he makes some great points...at others he plows the negative all he can.

He plays sides to see what articles get the most play. I believe (and I cannot find the article without paying for it on JSOline) in his 2007 recap article he basically questioned if it was time for Brett to go. Now what does he say about it?

He makes solid points...but also does not always account for where the offense put the defense.

But he was right on in that the 2007 defense did close more teams out...despite where the offense put them. They closed it out.

And other than a few instances, as I said, the 2008 version is not doing that. They just arent.

 

[Challenge Everything]

Needs to be said here. It is long overdue.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

You have to be joking, right?

 

[zDragon]

I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

You have to be joking, right?

Have you looked at what I've posted?

 

[ScottyFargo]

I know it's only 2 games, but Rodgers has looked sharp. The Packers management were pilloried by the media for not bringing Favre back.I know Rodgers is playing on a very good team, but he has 504 yards, 4 td's with no interceptions. One rushing td.Favre has 375 yards, 3 td's and 1 int. His team is not as good.

Most important information in this post is that it's only been 2 games, check back after 16.

Of the five opportunities where Rodgers could have saved the game, I believe Favre could have won 3. Of the 5 games that the Packers have won this year, I believe Favre's poor play would have impacted the team into losing 1. This is would make their record on the year 7-6, and would put them still in contention to win the division, unlike now where they have to Pray that they win out and the Vikings lose out.

Could have won 3? Great. Does not mean he would have as you gave him credit for.But even given your supposed 7-6...so, they might squeak in with the division and then what?That is the main issue.If its just squeak in but get beat...they obviously made the right decision (which is what this thread is ultimately about).

I thought this thread was about how the Packers didn't miss a beat with Rodgers in instead of Favre? Atleast that's how it started in week 2, anyway. I disagree to the point that it wouldn't be worth it to win the division if they lose the 1st game. That makes no sense to me, as nothing is predestined in the world. If you make it into the playoffs, you have the opportunity to play to get into the superbowl. If you don't, then you wait till next year. So by your logic, since the Packers will most likely not be winning the division this year, they might as well have not played any of the games they played this year because it was all for nothing? Makes no sense.

 

[ScottyFargo]

There's no doubt he's looked very, very good so far. But, I want to see him do it against a good pass defence before I anoint him.

Yeah while it was great I'm not dazzled by a big day vs DET. Hell Ryan did good too. Show me a good game vs DAL and I'll start to believe.

You mean like last year?

Wow, I have to cut Rodgers a break, I guess. He's played consistently well in losing contests all this year, as well as the time they subbed him in against Dallas LAST year. I guess the Packers knew what they were getting! A guy who plays well but doesn't quite do enough to get the W.

 

[mozzy84]

I know it's only 2 games, but Rodgers has looked sharp. The Packers management were pilloried by the media for not bringing Favre back.I know Rodgers is playing on a very good team, but he has 504 yards, 4 td's with no interceptions. One rushing td.Favre has 375 yards, 3 td's and 1 int. His team is not as good.

Most important information in this post is that it's only been 2 games, check back after 16.

Of the five opportunities where Rodgers could have saved the game, I believe Favre could have won 3. Of the 5 games that the Packers have won this year, I believe Favre's poor play would have impacted the team into losing 1. This is would make their record on the year 7-6, and would put them still in contention to win the division, unlike now where they have to Pray that they win out and the Vikings lose out.

Could have won 3? Great. Does not mean he would have as you gave him credit for.But even given your supposed 7-6...so, they might squeak in with the division and then what?That is the main issue.If its just squeak in but get beat...they obviously made the right decision (which is what this thread is ultimately about).

I thought this thread was about how the Packers didn't miss a beat with Rodgers in instead of Favre? Atleast that's how it started in week 2, anyway. I disagree to the point that it wouldn't be worth it to win the division if they lose the 1st game. That makes no sense to me, as nothing is predestined in the world. If you make it into the playoffs, you have the opportunity to play to get into the superbowl. If you don't, then you wait till next year. So by your logic, since the Packers will most likely not be winning the division this year, they might as well have not played any of the games they played this year because it was all for nothing? Makes no sense.

I am sure some playoff experience would be good for rogers, like you said it makes no sense.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

someone's excited about barely beating detroit again

 

[CBower4545]

Rodger's has played well but the packer's offense is not as good as it was last year.(They went from 2nd in yards to 11th) The Jets defense is about the same as last year but the offense has greatly improved.( they went from 26th to 14th in yards) The packers defense was just as terrible in 04' and the Packers went 10 - 6. I don't know that Favre would bring the Pack to the playoffs if he was there this year, but I can't rule out that he could have done it. Favre has learned a new offense and is still playing at a high level, maybe the result would be the same but I would have liked to see what Favre could have done with the Packers. Also I think it's too easy to disregard the fact that the Packer's will not make the playoffs and the Jets look to have a good chance. At the start of the year, I would have thought you were crazy if you said this is were these two teams will be in after week 14.

 

[zDragon]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/90543-f...-07-for-packers

First off it's funny you laugh at me posting Rodgers and McCarthy comments but then post this? You laugh because front office personnel supported Football outsiders method and then post this?Packer Eagle game

Guy is spot on.

Packer Chargers game

Favre was 368/3/0 with one of the two TD's coming in around the two minute mark. So he had a very good game going.

The defense gave up 24 points which from what most have said here is terrible defense. Looking at the box-scores only you could say they played a good game.

Do they win this game if Favre disappears does not bring them from behind at the 2 minute mark? I mean after all the defense did give up 24 points. Lets think about that one.

Packer Viking Game

First thing I notice is that the defense had a terrible day and are much....well they gave up 155 yds rushing. This makes them terrible right? Close game 155 yards rushing....Terrible right that's the claim made here yet they win this game.

Favre was 364/2/0 in the game and sustained drives with a 50% 3rd down conversions.

See the difference here in a close game the offense had a 50% conversion rate versus the 10% in a few games this year.

The guy is right if your only looking at the last drive the defense did close down but the offense managed the game very well and did not but them in bad situations.

Packer Redskin game

Dead on here.

Favre did not help matters at all but the Redskins were also killing themselves with Fumbles and penalties to kill drives.

Packer Bronco game

Favre and the offense had a good day.

The Broncos drove the from the 7 to the 4 starting at 2:27. The clock stopped the Broncos and allowed them to tie it. I would not call this closing a game.

I could agree with two out of five of these.

 

[Phurfur]

Rodger's has played well but the packer's offense is not as good as it was last year.(They went from 2nd in yards to 11th) The Jets defense is about the same as last year but the offense has greatly improved.( they went from 26th to 14th in yards) The packers defense was just as terrible in 04' and the Packers went 10 - 6. I don't know that Favre would bring the Pack to the playoffs if he was there this year, but I can't rule out that he could have done it. Favre has learned a new offense and is still playing at a high level, maybe the result would be the same but I would have liked to see what Favre could have done with the Packers. Also I think it's too easy to disregard the fact that the Packer's will not make the playoffs and the Jets look to have a good chance. At the start of the year, I would have thought you were crazy if you said this is were these two teams will be in after week 14.

Let's say Favre makes the playoffs with GB and loses in the Championship game. Who will be their starting QB next year; Rodgers would be a free agent. I will take a potential 10 years with Rodgers over one more disappointing playoff lost with Favre. Aaron Rodgers is the one bright spot for GB this year. I'm a Packer season ticket holder and I am happy with the trade. I'm in it for the long haul not one year.

 

[zDragon]

Rodger's has played well but the packer's offense is not as good as it was last year.(They went from 2nd in yards to 11th) The Jets defense is about the same as last year but the offense has greatly improved.( they went from 26th to 14th in yards) The packers defense was just as terrible in 04' and the Packers went 10 - 6. I don't know that Favre would bring the Pack to the playoffs if he was there this year, but I can't rule out that he could have done it. Favre has learned a new offense and is still playing at a high level, maybe the result would be the same but I would have liked to see what Favre could have done with the Packers. Also I think it's too easy to disregard the fact that the Packer's will not make the playoffs and the Jets look to have a good chance. At the start of the year, I would have thought you were crazy if you said this is were these two teams will be in after week 14.

Let's say Favre makes the playoffs with GB and loses in the Championship game. Who will be their starting QB next year; Rodgers would be a free agent. I will take a potential 10 years with Rodgers over one more disappointing playoff lost with Favre. Aaron Rodgers is the one bright spot for GB this year. I'm a Packer season ticket holder and I am happy with the trade. I'm in it for the long haul not one year.

Not a packers fan but I think I'd want my team to make the play-offs and have a chance at a run this year. Next year for all you know Rodgers blows out his knee (or any of many health issues that could come up) and your suffering another season and lost this one.Just my view and I still think the Packers are in a good situation going into next year.

 

[Chachi]

sho nuff 492 posts. let's say 10 minutes per post. that's 4920 minutes or 82 HOURS of life. This is sickening, say you make $50 per hour, that's $4100 wasted. Simply pathetic all the lost time/energy, ouchie momma.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

You have to be joking, right?

Have you looked at what I've posted?

I am referring to the above quote. You say the defense is not much worse than last year and that could not be further from the truth. This year's defense is one of the worst in the league.

 

[ScottyFargo]

someone's excited about barely beating detroit again

Glad to scrape by, now I am excited to wait for week 17 for the Lions last remaining REAL chance at a win against the 5-8 Green Bay Packers.But while we're waiting, let's look at all the teams that the Lions fought hard against and then ultimately lost too:Week 2: Green Bay Packers:

Green Bay led 21-0 midway through the second quarter, but fell behind by a point with 7:41 left after Calvin Johnson caught his second TD in the fourth quarter.The Packers went back ahead with a field goal on the ensuing drive, then turned the game back into the rout it had been with three straight interceptions.

Wow the Packers fought back hard and thanks to the turnovers managed to turn the close game into a rout... in the last half of the fourth quarter! Doh!Week 6: Minnesota Vikings

A questionable pass interference penalty on Bodden put Minnesota's woeful offense in position for a 26-yard field goal by Ryan Longwell with nine seconds left that lifted the Vikings to a 12-10 victory Sunday, keeping the Lions winless on the season.

Vikes get LUCKY!Week 7: Houston Texans

The Texans scored touchdowns on their first three possessions for the first time in team history. Matt Schaub completed all but two of his passes in the first half and Slaton and Green combined for almost 100 yards rushing before the half.Houston wasn't quite as sharp in the second half, punting on four of five possessions, and was outscored 18-7, allowing the Lions (0-6) to cut the lead to a touchdown with about 4 minutes left.

Guess what the Lions have in common with the Packers? They both lost to the Texans! Yowza!Week 8: Washington Redskins

Moss returned a punt 80 yards early in the fourth quarter, scoring what proved to be Washington's game-winning touchdown in a 25-17 win over the Detroit Lions on Sunday.

Lions hang until the 4th.Week 11: Carolina Panthers

Returning to the scene of his career-changing knee injury three years ago, Culpepper got the Lions within 24-22 on his 1-yard plunge with 6:05 left. Culpepper called his own number again on the two-point conversion try, but was stopped short of the goal line as Jon Beason grabbed his facemask. No penalty was called.Culpepper, who was signed on Nov. 4 and started last week's blowout loss to Jacksonville, was intercepted by Charles Godfrey on Detroit's next possession, with no Detroit receiver in the area. Williams' 4-yard TD run on the next play put it away.

Held it close against the Panthers, too. Another team that has beat the Packers this year. Hmm...Week 12: Tampa Bay Bucs

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are getting pretty good at rallying against bad teams after digging big holes.Tampa Bay fell behind the winless Detroit Lions by 17 points, then scored five unanswered touchdowns en route to a 38-20 victory Sunday.

Five unanswered TD's? The Lions are quitters! (NFC South sweeps both the Lions and the Packers this year. Tough division!)Then they got blown out by Tenn, and you know that they had a good game against the Vikes... just not good enough to win. So, to bring this post back on Topic: The Lions are kind of like Aaron Rodgers. Sometimes they look good, but this season they just haven't been able to close out their games.Good luck in week 17!

 

[Kleck]

The packers defense was just as terrible in 04' and the Packers went 10 - 6.

Based on league rankings and statistics, the defense now vs. 2004 was really close. Giving up 0.8 points fewer per game in 2004, but .15 more yards. The offenses statically were somewhat close too scoring 0.8 points fewer per game in 2004, but 53.3 more yards. The difference for me between those two years is that I see the potential with the offense now, but I felt more comfortable with the offense then. Having Rivera and Whale, and being considered one of the best offensive line units in the league. Walker and Driver were both top 10 WRs, Green was still a top RB and Favre was still throwing 30 TDs a year. Too bad Sherman put them in cap hell and his defense continued to get worse from 2001-2004. In 2005 the Packers defense ranked higher than they are this year but they went 4-12. Mainly because of Sherman's cap hell and the offensive injuries. It's tough to compare years. The Packers have gone through quite a few changes since 2004, and each year the injuries were different. No matter how great Favre is, it's still a team game and you can't win games and go deep in the playoffs without the supporting cast on all sides. And even when you are great on offense and defense it's still tough to go deep in the Playoffs (2001 - #5 offense, #5 defense, lost in divisional round).

 

[zDragon]

I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

You have to be joking, right?

Have you looked at what I've posted?

I am referring to the above quote. You say the defense is not much worse than last year and that could not be further from the truth. This year's defense is one of the worst in the league.

Please look at the facts I've posted. There's also quotes from McCarthy and Rodgers so don't catch my line for one poster and ignore everything else I've posted.To say they are one of the worst in the league is even further from the truth. Here's some worse defenses.

Lions

Rams

Bengals

Chiefs

Broncos

Texans

Seahawks

49'ers

Saints

Cardinals

Football Outsiders DVOA ranking for the Packers Defense is 11th.

You might not agree with the way they analyze the 40,000 plays each season but to say they are one of the worst is off base and my point.

 

[sho nuff]

I know it's only 2 games, but Rodgers has looked sharp. The Packers management were pilloried by the media for not bringing Favre back.I know Rodgers is playing on a very good team, but he has 504 yards, 4 td's with no interceptions. One rushing td.Favre has 375 yards, 3 td's and 1 int. His team is not as good.

Most important information in this post is that it's only been 2 games, check back after 16.

Of the five opportunities where Rodgers could have saved the game, I believe Favre could have won 3. Of the 5 games that the Packers have won this year, I believe Favre's poor play would have impacted the team into losing 1. This is would make their record on the year 7-6, and would put them still in contention to win the division, unlike now where they have to Pray that they win out and the Vikings lose out.

Could have won 3? Great. Does not mean he would have as you gave him credit for.But even given your supposed 7-6...so, they might squeak in with the division and then what?That is the main issue.If its just squeak in but get beat...they obviously made the right decision (which is what this thread is ultimately about).

I thought this thread was about how the Packers didn't miss a beat with Rodgers in instead of Favre? Atleast that's how it started in week 2, anyway. I disagree to the point that it wouldn't be worth it to win the division if they lose the 1st game. That makes no sense to me, as nothing is predestined in the world. If you make it into the playoffs, you have the opportunity to play to get into the superbowl. If you don't, then you wait till next year. So by your logic, since the Packers will most likely not be winning the division this year, they might as well have not played any of the games they played this year because it was all for nothing? Makes no sense.

I think its about the decision and was it the right one.Of course they would miss a beat...I have said that at least over and over.Whats the point of making to the playoffs and not even winning a game? Why bring him back just for that?I know its not predestined...but this current team...in all liklihood would not make it past one round.and it was a hypothetical based on that belief that this current team is not good enough to do much more.

 

[sho nuff]

I know it's only 2 games, but Rodgers has looked sharp. The Packers management were pilloried by the media for not bringing Favre back.I know Rodgers is playing on a very good team, but he has 504 yards, 4 td's with no interceptions. One rushing td.Favre has 375 yards, 3 td's and 1 int. His team is not as good.

Most important information in this post is that it's only been 2 games, check back after 16.

Of the five opportunities where Rodgers could have saved the game, I believe Favre could have won 3. Of the 5 games that the Packers have won this year, I believe Favre's poor play would have impacted the team into losing 1. This is would make their record on the year 7-6, and would put them still in contention to win the division, unlike now where they have to Pray that they win out and the Vikings lose out.

Could have won 3? Great. Does not mean he would have as you gave him credit for.But even given your supposed 7-6...so, they might squeak in with the division and then what?That is the main issue.If its just squeak in but get beat...they obviously made the right decision (which is what this thread is ultimately about).

I thought this thread was about how the Packers didn't miss a beat with Rodgers in instead of Favre? Atleast that's how it started in week 2, anyway. I disagree to the point that it wouldn't be worth it to win the division if they lose the 1st game. That makes no sense to me, as nothing is predestined in the world. If you make it into the playoffs, you have the opportunity to play to get into the superbowl. If you don't, then you wait till next year. So by your logic, since the Packers will most likely not be winning the division this year, they might as well have not played any of the games they played this year because it was all for nothing? Makes no sense.

I am sure some playoff experience would be good for rogers, like you said it makes no sense.

In the scenario posted...Favre would have still been on the team...so how would Rodgers be getting any playoff experience?

 

[sho nuff]

Rodger's has played well but the packer's offense is not as good as it was last year.(They went from 2nd in yards to 11th) The Jets defense is about the same as last year but the offense has greatly improved.( they went from 26th to 14th in yards) The packers defense was just as terrible in 04' and the Packers went 10 - 6. I don't know that Favre would bring the Pack to the playoffs if he was there this year, but I can't rule out that he could have done it. Favre has learned a new offense and is still playing at a high level, maybe the result would be the same but I would have liked to see what Favre could have done with the Packers. Also I think it's too easy to disregard the fact that the Packer's will not make the playoffs and the Jets look to have a good chance. At the start of the year, I would have thought you were crazy if you said this is were these two teams will be in after week 14.

At the start of this year I would have thought the Packer D would have been much better too.But they are not.Fact is...the Jets added more than just Brett Favre and were talked about as an 8-8 type team before ever making that trade.And he has played at a high level at times. Though, poor performances and losses against Oakland, SF, and Denver are not really helping the case there for Favre this year in GB.

 

[sho nuff]

sho nuff 492 posts. let's say 10 minutes per post. that's 4920 minutes or 82 HOURS of life. This is sickening, say you make $50 per hour, that's $4100 wasted. Simply pathetic all the lost time/energy, ouchie momma.

How much time have you wasted adding up my posts...how many minutes (most posts take under a minute actually unless there is any research involved)...how much money wasted worrying about what I have posted without even adding anything of substance to this topic?

 

[Anthony Borbely]

I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

You have to be joking, right?

Have you looked at what I've posted?

I am referring to the above quote. You say the defense is not much worse than last year and that could not be further from the truth. This year's defense is one of the worst in the league.

Please look at the facts I've posted. There's also quotes from McCarthy and Rodgers so don't catch my line for one poster and ignore everything else I've posted.To say they are one of the worst in the league is even further from the truth. Here's some worse defenses.

Lions

Rams

Bengals

Chiefs

Broncos

Texans

Seahawks

49'ers

Saints

Cardinals

Football Outsiders DVOA ranking for the Packers Defense is 11th.

You might not agree with the way they analyze the 40,000 plays each season but to say they are one of the worst is off base and my point.

Throw Football Outsiders out the window if they really think the Packers are the 11th ranked defense. That is ridiculous. They aren't even a top 20 defense let alone a top 11. They can't tackle anyone. Good defenses tackle well. The Packers don't. That is obvious if you watch them play.

They can't stop the run. They allow almost 5 yards per carry. That by itself eliminates them from being a top half of the league defense. There is no such thing as a good defense that is really bad against the run.

The pass defense is just outside the top 10 in yards per game, but that is misleading because teams don't have to throw the ball since their run defense is so bad. But teams throw at will late in games. The defense can't stop the pass when they need to.

They can't stop anyone from scoring. They are allowing almost 25 PPG (bottom third in the league), and over 100 in the last 3 games. They are especially bad when it matters.

I'd sure like to know how a team that is in the bottom 3rd in points allowed, bottom 5 in rushing yards per game, bottom 5 in rushing yards per attempt, and one of the worst tackling teams in the league can be anything but a bad defense.

They are clearly a bottom 3rd of the league defense, which means they are one of the worst.

 

[Chachi]

sho nuff 496 posts now.

 

[Titus Pullo]

sho nuff 496 posts now.

another funny one:zDragon 170total forum posts 237

 

[ScottyFargo]

I know it's only 2 games, but Rodgers has looked sharp. The Packers management were pilloried by the media for not bringing Favre back.

I know Rodgers is playing on a very good team, but he has 504 yards, 4 td's with no interceptions. One rushing td.

Favre has 375 yards, 3 td's and 1 int. His team is not as good.

Most important information in this post is that it's only been 2 games, check back after 16.

Of the five opportunities where Rodgers could have saved the game, I believe Favre could have won 3. Of the 5 games that the Packers have won this year, I believe Favre's poor play would have impacted the team into losing 1. This is would make their record on the year 7-6, and would put them still in contention to win the division, unlike now where they have to Pray that they win out and the Vikings lose out.

Could have won 3? Great. Does not mean he would have as you gave him credit for.But even given your supposed 7-6...so, they might squeak in with the division and then what?

That is the main issue.

If its just squeak in but get beat...they obviously made the right decision (which is what this thread is ultimately about).

I thought this thread was about how the Packers didn't miss a beat with Rodgers in instead of Favre? Atleast that's how it started in week 2, anyway. I disagree to the point that it wouldn't be worth it to win the division if they lose the 1st game. That makes no sense to me, as nothing is predestined in the world. If you make it into the playoffs, you have the opportunity to play to get into the superbowl. If you don't, then you wait till next year. So by your logic, since the Packers will most likely not be winning the division this year, they might as well have not played any of the games they played this year because it was all for nothing? Makes no sense.

I am sure some playoff experience would be good for rogers, like you said it makes no sense.

In the scenario posted...Favre would have still been on the team...so how would Rodgers be getting any playoff experience?

There's still an outside chance that Rodgers' could play in the playoffs. Should the Packers stop trying for the final 3 weeks even though if they win out and the Vikings lose out they are still likely one and done? I would think not, and the same holds true if Favre had been brought back, because "likely" isn't written in stone.What is the point in moving on with Rodgers if EITHER WAY the Packers can't make it to the playoffs or they make it in and they lose the first game? The object of the season is to make it to the playoffs. Then anything can happen.

The way the Packers have played this season they should have cut their losses before they started, traded all their old talent away for picks because that's their strategy, and planned to be good when Flynn or Brohm develop because NOBODY can succeed with the defense they have, right? They should have rebuilt their o-line and d-line and not risked their few young stars they had to injury, apparently, because either way they couldn't succeed.

I don't subscribe to that philosophy. Maybe they could have used Favre to get Rodgers' to the playoffs and handed him the reins then so he could get the same experience that the young players had last year in the NFC Championship game. It served them all so well.

Green Bay Packers: The most inexperienced team in the league.

 

[bcr8f]

Put in the kids and get them playing time. Rodgers needs experience playing in the cold. Play for draft picks.

 

[parasaurolophus]

i am getting very tired of hearing about sherman's cap hell.

Thompson has kept us way below the cap every year. So what? we suck.

 

[zDragon]

I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

You have to be joking, right?

Have you looked at what I've posted?

I am referring to the above quote. You say the defense is not much worse than last year and that could not be further from the truth. This year's defense is one of the worst in the league.

Please look at the facts I've posted. There's also quotes from McCarthy and Rodgers so don't catch my line for one poster and ignore everything else I've posted.To say they are one of the worst in the league is even further from the truth. Here's some worse defenses.

Lions

Rams

Bengals

Chiefs

Broncos

Texans

Seahawks

49'ers

Saints

Cardinals

Football Outsiders DVOA ranking for the Packers Defense is 11th.

You might not agree with the way they analyze the 40,000 plays each season but to say they are one of the worst is off base and my point.

Throw Football Outsiders out the window if they really think the Packers are the 11th ranked defense. That is ridiculous. They aren't even a top 20 defense let alone a top 11. They can't tackle anyone. Good defenses tackle well. The Packers don't. That is obvious if you watch them play.

They can't stop the run. They allow almost 5 yards per carry. That by itself eliminates them from being a top half of the league defense. There is no such thing as a good defense that is really bad against the run.

The pass defense is just outside the top 10 in yards per game, but that is misleading because teams don't have to throw the ball since their run defense is so bad. But teams throw at will late in games. The defense can't stop the pass when they need to.

They can't stop anyone from scoring. They are allowing almost 25 PPG (bottom third in the league), and over 100 in the last 3 games. They are especially bad when it matters.

I'd sure like to know how a team that is in the bottom 3rd in points allowed, bottom 5 in rushing yards per game, bottom 5 in rushing yards per attempt, and one of the worst tackling teams in the league can be anything but a bad defense.

They are clearly a bottom 3rd of the league defense, which means they are one of the worst.

Throw out a site that uses every snap of the season to determine it's ranking? Versus your judgment and numbers that can be deceiving?Can you describe what a good tackle looks like? I know I rarely see it in the NFL so this isn't a good point.

Yards per play for the packers is 5.5 sitting at #22 in the league right now. Not near the worst unless you use your third groupings.

In your grouping of thirds the #11 (Bucs) or last team in the top third are givng up 5.0 yd/pp or 30 more yds per game (60 plays) or 3 yards per drive more (10 drives). This goes to show how important field position is in football games and how situational football matters.

Scoring is directly related to situational football and points allowed is not a really good indicator.

You should read Football outsiders to get the basic idea of what they use to calculate the numbers then come back and post.

 

[Anthony Borbely]

I DO NOT FULLY BLAME THE OFFENSE BUT MY POINT IS THE DEFENSE IS NOT MUCH WORSE THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

You have to be joking, right?

Have you looked at what I've posted?

I am referring to the above quote. You say the defense is not much worse than last year and that could not be further from the truth. This year's defense is one of the worst in the league.

Please look at the facts I've posted. There's also quotes from McCarthy and Rodgers so don't catch my line for one poster and ignore everything else I've posted.To say they are one of the worst in the league is even further from the truth. Here's some worse defenses.

Lions

Rams

Bengals

Chiefs

Broncos

Texans

Seahawks

49'ers

Saints

Cardinals

Football Outsiders DVOA ranking for the Packers Defense is 11th.

You might not agree with the way they analyze the 40,000 plays each season but to say they are one of the worst is off base and my point.

Throw Football Outsiders out the window if they really think the Packers are the 11th ranked defense. That is ridiculous. They aren't even a top 20 defense let alone a top 11. They can't tackle anyone. Good defenses tackle well. The Packers don't. That is obvious if you watch them play.

They can't stop the run. They allow almost 5 yards per carry. That by itself eliminates them from being a top half of the league defense. There is no such thing as a good defense that is really bad against the run.

The pass defense is just outside the top 10 in yards per game, but that is misleading because teams don't have to throw the ball since their run defense is so bad. But teams throw at will late in games. The defense can't stop the pass when they need to.

They can't stop anyone from scoring. They are allowing almost 25 PPG (bottom third in the league), and over 100 in the last 3 games. They are especially bad when it matters.

I'd sure like to know how a team that is in the bottom 3rd in points allowed, bottom 5 in rushing yards per game, bottom 5 in rushing yards per attempt, and one of the worst tackling teams in the league can be anything but a bad defense.

They are clearly a bottom 3rd of the league defense, which means they are one of the worst.

Throw out a site that uses every snap of the season to determine it's ranking? Versus your judgment and numbers that can be deceiving?Can you describe what a good tackle looks like? I know I rarely see it in the NFL so this isn't a good point.

Yards per play for the packers is 5.5 sitting at #22 in the league right now. Not near the worst unless you use your third groupings.

In your grouping of thirds the #11 (Bucs) or last team in the top third are givng up 5.0 yd/pp or 30 more yds per game (60 plays) or 3 yards per drive more (10 drives). This goes to show how important field position is in football games and how situational football matters.

Scoring is directly related to situational football and points allowed is not a really good indicator.

You should read Football outsiders to get the basic idea of what they use to calculate the numbers then come back and post.

Judging by the above and some other useless numbers they use, I'll pass. Anyone can use any snap and post a bunch of information, but it is what they DO with the information that matters. I'm sure they have some useful things, but whatever numbers they use to claim that the Packers have the 11th ranked defense is completely worthless.

Instead of just throwing numbers into a computer, they should try watching the game once in a while. There is no way that defense is close to the 11th best defense and I don't need computer generated programs to tell me. It's obvious if you watch them play.

 

[Kleck]

i am getting very tired of hearing about sherman's cap hell. Thompson has kept us way below the cap every year. So what? we suck.

Yeah, I hear you. Cap hell has been played out. Sherman just picked a few wrong guys to give some big contracts, and when talking about the decline from 2004 to 2005 I do think it was one of the reasons. I'd rather be well under the cap then up against it right now. The Packers have some key guys coming up for FA after this year and next that I'd like to see resigned or kept if possible.

 

[bcr8f]

Judging by the above and some other useless numbers they use, I'll pass. Anyone can use any snap and post a bunch of information, but it is what they DO with the information that matters.

That's right. This is a very young team and needs experience. Get them playing time especially Tramon Williams, Montgomery and Bishop.

 

[Chachi]

sho nuff 496 posts now.

another funny one:zDragon 170total forum posts 237

Maybe it's the same person with multiple personalities and they're at war.