Packers "going to try to go for this thing" (1 Viewer)

[Reepicheep]

While sarnoff isn't saying it in the best way, I agree it's not a good move from the Packers to announce they're going for it. They'd be fools to leave Aaron in games that mean nothing. Why allow cheap shots from Suh when they could have Flynn play? Just so they can aim for 16-0 even if it has a chance of hurting their odds of winning a Super Bowl?

sho nuff likes to argue in general but I think your homerism is bleeding through here.

Not to be pedantic, but when you're talking about the potential for an undefeated season, the games do mean something. They are an opportunity to do what has never been done. If we were talking about a 13-1 team that had clinched homefield throughout, fine, the last two games mean nothing. 13-3, 15-1, whats the difference, it's all been done before. But nobody has gone 19-0. It's not meaningless.

 

[sho nuff]

While sarnoff isn't saying it in the best way, I agree it's not a good move from the Packers to announce they're going for it. They'd be fools to leave Aaron in games that mean nothing. Why allow cheap shots from Suh when they could have Flynn play? Just so they can aim for 16-0 even if it has a chance of hurting their odds of winning a Super Bowl?sho nuff likes to argue in general but I think your homerism is bleeding through here.

I don't think it is homeristic to say that the team has handled this well.Otherwise nearly every national talk radio show is now full of Packer homers because they have said the same thing.But what negative is there to players saying they are going to try this?Arguing whether its smart to leave Rodgers in is one thing...but what does this announcement do vs. not announcing it?That is where I had a large disagreement here.

 

[Sarnoff]

But what negative is there to players saying they are going to try this?

That it backfires.A better question is, what's the positive? The answer is... there is none. Every week, every team tries to win. You don't have to go out and announce it before hand. Everyone wants to win. So, what are they gaining here? Nothing.

But now they're "calling their shot", which makes you look like a bigger idiot IF you miss.

There is only downside... that they announce "Oh, now at week 14 we're going to actually try", then they go out and lose and it affects their morale and their spirit and they lose their swagger of invincibility.

There is no upside. There is nothing to be gained. The positive is absolutely zero. There is some, albeit slight, negative associated. Therefore, the negative must outweigh the positive, because it's more than zero, however small it is.

Therefore, it's a bad move. QED.

 

[sho nuff]

But what negative is there to players saying they are going to try this?

That it backfires.A better question is, what's the positive? The answer is... there is none. Every week, every team tries to win. You don't have to go out and announce it before hand. Everyone wants to win. So, what are they gaining here? Nothing.

But now they're "calling their shot", which makes you look like a bigger idiot IF you miss.

There is only downside... that they announce "Oh, now at week 14 we're going to actually try", then they go out and lose and it affects their morale and their spirit and they lose their swagger of invincibility.

There is no upside. There is nothing to be gained. The positive is absolutely zero. There is some, albeit slight, negative associated. Therefore, the negative must outweigh the positive, because it's more than zero, however small it is.

Therefore, it's a bad move. QED.

What is backfiring?Not winning?

They are not calling anything more than if given the opportunity to go undefeated they are going to go for it.

Its not a mindblowing thing.

Its not bulletin board material.

But really what is the negative of saying they want to go for it...is losing backfiring? Would a loss be because they said this? No...it would be because another team beat them and have absolutely nothing to do with them "announcing" this.

 

[Sarnoff]

But what negative is there to players saying they are going to try this?

That it backfires.A better question is, what's the positive? The answer is... there is none. Every week, every team tries to win. You don't have to go out and announce it before hand. Everyone wants to win. So, what are they gaining here? Nothing.

But now they're "calling their shot", which makes you look like a bigger idiot IF you miss.

There is only downside... that they announce "Oh, now at week 14 we're going to actually try", then they go out and lose and it affects their morale and their spirit and they lose their swagger of invincibility.

There is no upside. There is nothing to be gained. The positive is absolutely zero. There is some, albeit slight, negative associated. Therefore, the negative must outweigh the positive, because it's more than zero, however small it is.

Therefore, it's a bad move. QED.

What is backfiring?Not winning?

They are not calling anything more than if given the opportunity to go undefeated they are going to go for it.

Its not a mindblowing thing.

Its not bulletin board material.

But really what is the negative of saying they want to go for it...is losing backfiring? Would a loss be because they said this? No...it would be because another team beat them and have absolutely nothing to do with them "announcing" this.

Try and comprehend English.

The ploy "backfires" if they announce they are going to try and go undefeated, but they don't, which might result in them losing morale going forward. That's the backfire. That they show up in the locker room the next Tuesday and say "man, we went all out and lost... we're not as invincible as we've been all year. Maybe we're not as good as we thought."

If they just shut up and showed up and did their jobs every Sunday, they could hold their heads high, win or lose. But call your shot and lose and it could shake them up. You don't want them overthinking a loss in a meaningless game heading into the playoffs.

 

[matttyl]

I'm not so worried about them saying they "would like to go 16-0" or however you want to phrase it...I'm worried about how long they keep their starters going THIS WEEKEND if they are up by 21+.

Benching Rodgers in the 3rd quarter again would be the best move to keep him healthy for week 16, when they can still "go for it".

 

[sho nuff]

Try and comprehend English.

The ploy "backfires" if they announce they are going to try and go undefeated, but they don't, which might result in them losing morale going forward. That's the backfire. That they show up in the locker room the next Tuesday and say "man, we went all out and lost... we're not as invincible as we've been all year. Maybe we're not as good as we thought."

If they just shut up and showed up and did their jobs every Sunday, they could hold their heads high, win or lose. But call your shot and lose and it could shake them up. You don't want them overthinking a loss in a meaningless game heading into the playoffs.

I understand English just fine.Your logic is lacking though.

If they don't go undefeated...I don't think it affects their morale (as far as these next 3 games).

I think if they go down swinging...they know they gave it a shot.

Nor do I think a loss in the next three affects their play 5 weeks from now when their postseason starts.

I think you are overthinking it.

THem announcing this has little to do with anything...because if they just shut up as you say...it would be no different than what you are claiming. THey would still have gone all out and lost. Announcing what they have or not announcing it has no bearing on anything.

That is what I am questioning in what you are saying.

 

[Reepicheep]

If some player, from a morale perspective, is happier saying "We lost but the game didn't really matter to us so whatever." than they are saying "We went all out to make history and came up short." then I'm pretty sure I don't want that player on my team anyways.

I do not see this as a team with such fragile constitutions.

 

[Sabertooth]

If some player, from a morale perspective, is happier saying "We lost but the game didn't really matter to us so whatever." than they are saying "We went all out to make history and came up short." then I'm pretty sure I don't want that player on my team anyways.

I do not see this as a team with such fragile constitutions.

Isn't that pretty much what the Bears entire organization said last year?

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

But what negative is there to players saying they are going to try this?

That it backfires.A better question is, what's the positive? The answer is... there is none. Every week, every team tries to win. You don't have to go out and announce it before hand. Everyone wants to win. So, what are they gaining here? Nothing.

But now they're "calling their shot", which makes you look like a bigger idiot IF you miss.

There is only downside... that they announce "Oh, now at week 14 we're going to actually try", then they go out and lose and it affects their morale and their spirit and they lose their swagger of invincibility.

There is no upside. There is nothing to be gained. The positive is absolutely zero. There is some, albeit slight, negative associated. Therefore, the negative must outweigh the positive, because it's more than zero, however small it is.

Therefore, it's a bad move. QED.

What is backfiring?Not winning?

They are not calling anything more than if given the opportunity to go undefeated they are going to go for it.

Its not a mindblowing thing.

Its not bulletin board material.

But really what is the negative of saying they want to go for it...is losing backfiring? Would a loss be because they said this? No...it would be because another team beat them and have absolutely nothing to do with them "announcing" this.

Try and comprehend English.

The ploy "backfires" if they announce they are going to try and go undefeated, but they don't, which might result in them losing morale going forward. That's the backfire. That they show up in the locker room the next Tuesday and say "man, we went all out and lost... we're not as invincible as we've been all year. Maybe we're not as good as we thought."

If they just shut up and showed up and did their jobs every Sunday, they could hold their heads high, win or lose. But call your shot and lose and it could shake them up. You don't want them overthinking a loss in a meaningless game heading into the playoffs.

What you just suggested would help the team. When a team thinks they can't lose...watch them lose.

When the '85 Bears lost to Miami, they responded by recording the "Super Bowl Shuffle" video. They recognized they could lose...but refused to do so again. I think it made them stronger, because they knew the margin between winning and losing wasn't as big as the media implied.

Everybody knows they're trying to go 16-0 if they don't rest their starters. They have no other reason to play them. It doesn't hurt anything imo.

 

[Sarnoff]

If they don't go undefeated...I don't think it affects their morale (as far as these next 3 games).

I think if they go down swinging...they know they gave it a shot.

Nor do I think a loss in the next three affects their play 5 weeks from now when their postseason starts.

But is what you think an absolute certainty? No. It is not. You may think it's unlikely that a player would have a tinge of doubt about a loss after publicly stepping forward and saying they're going to go out and win the rest of the way, but it is not 100%.There is nothing to be gained by opening their mouths about it. Only downside.

 

[yabahos]

It's great that they are committed to going for it. It would be great to see someone go 19-0. One thing I've noticed is that they seem to be getting less play in the media for whatever reason. Seems like ESPN and the like are focusing on the Tebow story and barely mentioning the fact that GB is 13-0. During the Patriots run the focus was all on the Patriots from about Week 11 on. It just adds another layer of stress to an already difficult task.

Maybe the media will start pushing the story more but considering what the Packers are doing, I'm sort of suprised by the lack of attention they are getting on the national stage.

 

[Fightin Donkey]

But what negative is there to players saying they are going to try this?

That it backfires.A better question is, what's the positive? The answer is... there is none. Every week, every team tries to win. You don't have to go out and announce it before hand. Everyone wants to win. So, what are they gaining here? Nothing.

But now they're "calling their shot", which makes you look like a bigger idiot IF you miss.

There is only downside... that they announce "Oh, now at week 14 we're going to actually try", then they go out and lose and it affects their morale and their spirit and they lose their swagger of invincibility.

There is no upside. There is nothing to be gained. The positive is absolutely zero. There is some, albeit slight, negative associated. Therefore, the negative must outweigh the positive, because it's more than zero, however small it is.

Therefore, it's a bad move. QED.

I have to say, I don't think you have ever played sports or been a fierce competitor. If a player or team needs billboard material to get them motivated, they are a losing team/player.

There is nothing wrong with being confident in your abilities. A big difference between being confident and cocky.

The Packers are a very confident team and rightfully so.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with coming out and saying they are going to go for it. Did anyone think they weren't?

16-0 is not, nor has it ever been a goal. They have stated that. It still isn't. But it's definitely within reach.

 

[Fightin Donkey]

But what negative is there to players saying they are going to try this?

That it backfires.A better question is, what's the positive? The answer is... there is none. Every week, every team tries to win. You don't have to go out and announce it before hand. Everyone wants to win. So, what are they gaining here? Nothing.

But now they're "calling their shot", which makes you look like a bigger idiot IF you miss.

There is only downside... that they announce "Oh, now at week 14 we're going to actually try", then they go out and lose and it affects their morale and their spirit and they lose their swagger of invincibility.

There is no upside. There is nothing to be gained. The positive is absolutely zero. There is some, albeit slight, negative associated. Therefore, the negative must outweigh the positive, because it's more than zero, however small it is.

Therefore, it's a bad move. QED.

What is backfiring?Not winning?

They are not calling anything more than if given the opportunity to go undefeated they are going to go for it.

Its not a mindblowing thing.

Its not bulletin board material.

But really what is the negative of saying they want to go for it...is losing backfiring? Would a loss be because they said this? No...it would be because another team beat them and have absolutely nothing to do with them "announcing" this.

Try and comprehend English.

The ploy "backfires" if they announce they are going to try and go undefeated, but they don't, which might result in them losing morale going forward. That's the backfire. That they show up in the locker room the next Tuesday and say "man, we went all out and lost... we're not as invincible as we've been all year. Maybe we're not as good as we thought."

If they just shut up and showed up and did their jobs every Sunday, they could hold their heads high, win or lose. But call your shot and lose and it could shake them up. You don't want them overthinking a loss in a meaningless game heading into the playoffs.

Good job, you reeled me in.

 

[Dr. Awesome]

While sarnoff isn't saying it in the best way, I agree it's not a good move from the Packers to announce they're going for it. They'd be fools to leave Aaron in games that mean nothing. Why allow cheap shots from Suh when they could have Flynn play? Just so they can aim for 16-0 even if it has a chance of hurting their odds of winning a Super Bowl?sho nuff likes to argue in general but I think your homerism is bleeding through here.

I don't think it is homeristic to say that the team has handled this well.Otherwise nearly every national talk radio show is now full of Packer homers because they have said the same thing.But what negative is there to players saying they are going to try this?Arguing whether its smart to leave Rodgers in is one thing...but what does this announcement do vs. not announcing it?That is where I had a large disagreement here.

It's homeristic to say they've handled it well when they're not handling it well.

 

[sho nuff]

While sarnoff isn't saying it in the best way, I agree it's not a good move from the Packers to announce they're going for it. They'd be fools to leave Aaron in games that mean nothing. Why allow cheap shots from Suh when they could have Flynn play? Just so they can aim for 16-0 even if it has a chance of hurting their odds of winning a Super Bowl?sho nuff likes to argue in general but I think your homerism is bleeding through here.

I don't think it is homeristic to say that the team has handled this well.Otherwise nearly every national talk radio show is now full of Packer homers because they have said the same thing.But what negative is there to players saying they are going to try this?Arguing whether its smart to leave Rodgers in is one thing...but what does this announcement do vs. not announcing it?That is where I had a large disagreement here.

It's homeristic to say they've handled it well when they're not handling it well.

So again, I guess every national talk radio show is now just Packer homers I guess.Because I have heard plenty of praise from about every source to how the Packers have handled it.Just how are they not handling it well?

 

[Jagerbomber]

It's homeristic to say they've handled it well when they're not handling it well.

I think some people here are just nitpicking/hating. Which is basically just reverse homerism. Moving along...

 

[PIK95]

Packers "going to try to go for this thing"

Personally, I love it. I think it's all about attitude and momentum, and this team has plenty of both. As a lifelong Packers fan, the last thing I wanna see is a repeat of the 2009 Colts 2007 Patriots.

Yeah, that would suck, too.

Well both teams made it to the SB, I think it would be hard to argue the point either way. Unless you think they Pats played poorly in the first week of Feb because they were tired from playing a game on Jan 1st, or that the Colts were somehow still rusty from missing a game a month ago.If the Packers are going to lose, I'd rather see them go down swinging for history than be just another team in the long line of #1 seeds that didn't win the SB. Plus it kind of feels like they're playing with house money after winning it all last year.

As a Pats fan let me tell you.. NOTHING, and I mean NOTHING willever come close to the feeling you will feel if the Packers go 18-1. Hopefully, you will just have to take my word for that and not have to live through it. There is not a worse feeling that you could experience as a sports fan. Nothing even comes close.

And that happened after already winning THREE SB's.. so you can forget all the house money stuff right now. that is NOT how it will feel.

I disagree. 86 world series was WAY worse and the Giants beat us up in the SB. They earned it. Hell seeing that ump blow that kids perfect game made me feel worse than that.

 

[Sabertooth]

McCarthy speaks his mind. He puts his money where his mouth is. He did it last year with the ring sizing thing. He doesn't worry about jinxing himself. Never has.

 

[gruecd]

Packers players make it clear - 16-0 is worth playing for

 

[Dr. Awesome]

While sarnoff isn't saying it in the best way, I agree it's not a good move from the Packers to announce they're going for it. They'd be fools to leave Aaron in games that mean nothing. Why allow cheap shots from Suh when they could have Flynn play? Just so they can aim for 16-0 even if it has a chance of hurting their odds of winning a Super Bowl?sho nuff likes to argue in general but I think your homerism is bleeding through here.

I don't think it is homeristic to say that the team has handled this well.Otherwise nearly every national talk radio show is now full of Packer homers because they have said the same thing.But what negative is there to players saying they are going to try this?Arguing whether its smart to leave Rodgers in is one thing...but what does this announcement do vs. not announcing it?That is where I had a large disagreement here.

It's homeristic to say they've handled it well when they're not handling it well.

So again, I guess every national talk radio show is now just Packer homers I guess.Because I have heard plenty of praise from about every source to how the Packers have handled it.Just how are they not handling it well?

Talk radio hosts take controversial stances all the time so they can keep listeners and stay employed. I wouldn't put a great deal of stock in talk radio hosts.

 

[sho nuff]

Talk radio hosts take controversial stances all the time so they can keep listeners and stay employed. I wouldn't put a great deal of stock in talk radio hosts.

So now its both homeristic and controversial to say that the Packers are not handling it well?And you still have not come up with anything showing how they are not doing so...why is that?

 

[Sabertooth]

While sarnoff isn't saying it in the best way, I agree it's not a good move from the Packers to announce they're going for it. They'd be fools to leave Aaron in games that mean nothing. Why allow cheap shots from Suh when they could have Flynn play? Just so they can aim for 16-0 even if it has a chance of hurting their odds of winning a Super Bowl?sho nuff likes to argue in general but I think your homerism is bleeding through here.

I don't think it is homeristic to say that the team has handled this well.Otherwise nearly every national talk radio show is now full of Packer homers because they have said the same thing.But what negative is there to players saying they are going to try this?Arguing whether its smart to leave Rodgers in is one thing...but what does this announcement do vs. not announcing it?That is where I had a large disagreement here.

It's homeristic to say they've handled it well when they're not handling it well.

So again, I guess every national talk radio show is now just Packer homers I guess.Because I have heard plenty of praise from about every source to how the Packers have handled it.Just how are they not handling it well?

Talk radio hosts take controversial stances all the time so they can keep listeners and stay employed. I wouldn't put a great deal of stock in talk radio hosts.

You are risk averse. No problem with that mindset. Mike McCarthy does not share your mindset though. He didn't get to this position by being scared. He stated as much. If it backfires on him, so be it. There is no right or wrong strategy here. We've seen teams take both approaches and fail. McCarthy is taking the same approach he has taken all along.

 

[Bruce Leroy]

Losing Super Bowl 32 to a Broncos team that cheated the salary cap. Yes, I'd put that on par with going 18-1 and losing the Super Bowl

Super Bowl XXXII = Broncos 31* Packers 24

* Broncos cheated salary cap and were fined $500,000 for it (Yay.)

Go for 19-0 or go home. Do something special. They'll be talked about as being the greatest team of all-time if they go 19-0.

 

[Sabertooth]

Losing Super Bowl 32 to a Broncos team that cheated the salary cap. Yes, I'd put that on par with going 18-1 and losing the Super BowlSuper Bowl XXXII = Broncos 31* Packers 24* Broncos cheated salary cap and we're fined $500,000 for it (Yay.)Go for 19-0 or go home. Do something special. They'll be talked about as being the greatest team of all-time if they go 19-0.

This, and if they don't do it, nobody will remember it anyway. As long as they win the Super Bowl.

 

[sho nuff]

Talk radio hosts take controversial stances all the time so they can keep listeners and stay employed. I wouldn't put a great deal of stock in talk radio hosts.

So now its both homeristic and controversial to say that the Packers are not handling it well?And you still have not come up with anything showing how they are not doing so...why is that?

:crickets:

 

[Dr. Awesome]

 

[Sarnoff]

 

[sho nuff]

Talk radio hosts take controversial stances all the time so they can keep listeners and stay employed. I wouldn't put a great deal of stock in talk radio hosts.

So now its both homeristic and controversial to say that the Packers are not handling it well?And you still have not come up with anything showing how they are not doing so...why is that?

:crickets:

Still :crickets: from sarnoff and Dr. A.But glad they bumped this...hilarious watching the trolling behavior of children.

 

[Sabertooth]

ok, what are the actual ramification of him stating they were going for it?

 

[Sea Duck]

Losing Super Bowl 32 to a Broncos team that cheated the salary cap. Yes, I'd put that on par with going 18-1 and losing the Super Bowl

Still can't let it go.

 

[Bruce Leroy]

It's all good. All goals are still intact. Now the Pack needs to fix the Off. Line.

 

[sho nuff]

It's all good. All goals are still intact. Now the Pack needs to fix the Off. Line.

Lost in the ridiculous trolling going on is the health of the Packers O line.

 

[Sarnoff]

It's all good. All goals are still intact. Now the Pack needs to fix the Off. Line.

Lost in the ridiculous trolling going on is the health of the Packers O line.

Already making excuses for their eventual playoff loss. Just admit you're an unabashed apologist.

 

[sho nuff]

It's all good. All goals are still intact. Now the Pack needs to fix the Off. Line.

Lost in the ridiculous trolling going on is the health of the Packers O line.

Already making excuses for their eventual playoff loss. Just admit you're an unabashed apologist.

Not really...they should get healthy...but what teams would not worry being down Clifton and Sitton and then losing 2 right tackles?

 

[tdmills]

It's all good. All goals are still intact. Now the Pack needs to fix the Off. Line.

Lost in the ridiculous trolling going on is the health of the Packers O line.

Look in the mirror, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll apparently

 

[sho nuff]

It's all good. All goals are still intact. Now the Pack needs to fix the Off. Line.

Lost in the ridiculous trolling going on is the health of the Packers O line.

Look in the mirror, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll apparently

Not at all.There are a select few that are the trolls the last few days.Based on their comments here and :e:lsewhere...plus the 2 that think leaving comments on my profile is funny too.Plenty of people don't agree with me and I don't call them trolls.But look at the response to my comment on the Oline. It was as expected from him.And any team that would not have a concern already down their starting LT and RG...then losing 2 RTs is nuts.Its the big concern for the Packers right now.

 

[tdmills]

It's all good. All goals are still intact. Now the Pack needs to fix the Off. Line.

Lost in the ridiculous trolling going on is the health of the Packers O line.

Look in the mirror, anyone who doesn't agree with you is a troll apparently

Not at all.There are a select few that are the trolls the last few days.Based on their comments here and :e:lsewhere...plus the 2 that think leaving comments on my profile is funny too.Plenty of people don't agree with me and I don't call them trolls.But look at the response to my comment on the Oline. It was as expected from him.And any team that would not have a concern already down their starting LT and RG...then losing 2 RTs is nuts.Its the big concern for the Packers right now.

I've found that no matter what the "select few" say you disregard their comments. That's what I was eluding to. You may not like them, but it doesn't seem that you're open to any suggestions/ideas/comments from them.The injuries on the OL are a major concern, also losing Jennings.However, what is a bigger concern: The injuries to the OL/Jennings? OR Momentum leaving GB?The Packers have been on an unbelievable run. Their was talk they should sit Rodgers down toward the end of last season because of his second concussion. Instead they go on and win a Super Bowl, then begin the season with a bunch of straight wins. However, nobody can keep on a roll like that and now it's happened. The Packers didn't play great two weeks ago vs NYG and they didn't play well vs KC. Is the momentum going to end their season early in the playoffs?

 

[sho nuff]

I've found that no matter what the "select few" say you disregard their comments. That's what I was eluding to. You may not like them, but it doesn't seem that you're open to any suggestions/ideas/comments from them.The injuries on the OL are a major concern, also losing Jennings.However, what is a bigger concern: The injuries to the OL/Jennings? OR Momentum leaving GB?The Packers have been on an unbelievable run. Their was talk they should sit Rodgers down toward the end of last season because of his second concussion. Instead they go on and win a Super Bowl, then begin the season with a bunch of straight wins. However, nobody can keep on a roll like that and now it's happened. The Packers didn't play great two weeks ago vs NYG and they didn't play well vs KC. Is the momentum going to end their season early in the playoffs?

Im open to comments that have merit and they can back up.Just claiming the Packers are handling something bad and bringing nothing to the table is not doing that.Not worried about momentum...and even the OL injuries are bad for the short term if they can get a few guys back.Sitton first will open up some options (Lang can play tackle in a pinch). Clifton and Bulaga back or one of the two would help as well.But they cannot afford another injury on the OL at all.Jennings injury...Im not sure how much effect that had. They still had guys open and dropping balls (the other concern that keeps popping up is Finley's hands...good gosh that guy was supposed to have great hands and he just keeps getting worse).

 

[tdmills]

I've found that no matter what the "select few" say you disregard their comments. That's what I was eluding to. You may not like them, but it doesn't seem that you're open to any suggestions/ideas/comments from them.

The injuries on the OL are a major concern, also losing Jennings.

However, what is a bigger concern: The injuries to the OL/Jennings? OR Momentum leaving GB?

The Packers have been on an unbelievable run. Their was talk they should sit Rodgers down toward the end of last season because of his second concussion. Instead they go on and win a Super Bowl, then begin the season with a bunch of straight wins. However, nobody can keep on a roll like that and now it's happened. The Packers didn't play great two weeks ago vs NYG and they didn't play well vs KC. Is the momentum going to end their season early in the playoffs?

Im open to comments that have merit and they can back up.Just claiming the Packers are handling something bad and bringing nothing to the table is not doing that.

Not worried about momentum...and even the OL injuries are bad for the short term if they can get a few guys back.

Sitton first will open up some options (Lang can play tackle in a pinch). Clifton and Bulaga back or one of the two would help as well.

But they cannot afford another injury on the OL at all.

Jennings injury...Im not sure how much effect that had. They still had guys open and dropping balls (the other concern that keeps popping up is Finley's hands...good gosh that guy was supposed to have great hands and he just keeps getting worse).

Normally guys in a contract year play better. Wonder what he will get on the open market now. What is the Packers cap situation next year? Isn't Sitton a UFA too?

 

[sho nuff]

Normally guys in a contract year play better. Wonder what he will get on the open market now. What is the Packers cap situation next year? Isn't Sitton a UFA too?

Sitton was resigned in September (6 year extension I think).Wells I believe is a UFA after the year. His age may hinder what they will offer...and if Dietrich-Smith shows anything over the rest of the year they could allow Wells to walk (would fit in with Thompson's MO a bit as far as letting some of the older guys go). I hope they bring Wells back though...does well calling the line and has had the best year of all the Packer OL.Not sure about Finley...his potential is there...but he certainly has not made his case for big money this year.

 

[Sarnoff]

 

[Dr. Awesome]

Talk radio hosts take controversial stances all the time so they can keep listeners and stay employed. I wouldn't put a great deal of stock in talk radio hosts.

So now its both homeristic and controversial to say that the Packers are not handling it well?And you still have not come up with anything showing how they are not doing so...why is that?

:crickets:

Still :crickets: from sarnoff and Dr. A.But glad they bumped this...hilarious watching the trolling behavior of children.

How can it be :crickets: from me if I'm the one who bumped this thread?

 

[sho nuff]

Talk radio hosts take controversial stances all the time so they can keep listeners and stay employed. I wouldn't put a great deal of stock in talk radio hosts.

So now its both homeristic and controversial to say that the Packers are not handling it well?And you still have not come up with anything showing how they are not doing so...why is that?

:crickets:

Still :crickets: from sarnoff and Dr. A.But glad they bumped this...hilarious watching the trolling behavior of children.

How can it be :crickets: from me if I'm the one who bumped this thread?

Post another comment maybe?Or maybe over on :e:....

 

[Dark Matter]

The title to the thread is start to read,"The Packers going to try fishing?"

I highly doubt that these professional atheletes ego's are so fragile that they will completly crumble under the weight of not going undefeated.

 

[hugebearsfansinceforever]

What I like about the Pack this year is that they are dominant and they know it. And they go out and prove it each week. Why wouldn't they have tried for a perfect season, albeit taking a game by game approach?

Losing one game shouldn't change their mindset. They need to believe and act like they will win every game between now and the Superbowl. The only reason to rest players the next couple of weeks is if they are blowing out teams in the 4th quarter.

 

[Sarnoff]

Who posted in: Packers "going to try to go for this thing"

Member name Posts

sho nuff 20

#1 here too. Lots of considering you conceded my point was correct...

 

[sho nuff]

Who posted in: Packers "going to try to go for this thing"

Member name Posts

sho nuff 20

#1 here too. Lots of considering you conceded my point was correct...

No amount of spin and lies will change that all you were doing is fishing...and acting like a child to report it all back to your :e: buddies.As I have said before with you...grow up.

 

[Sarnoff]

 

[Sarnoff]

Packers "going to try to go for this thing"

Personally, I love it. I think it's all about attitude and momentum, and this team has plenty of both. As a lifelong Packers fan, the last thing I wanna see is a repeat of the 2009 Colts.

Games since Dec. 12: Loss, Win, Win* (rested starters), Loss.

.500. Oh well.