What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Pre-Game Thread*** Green Bay at Philadelphia (1 Viewer)

Packers 31 Eagles 27

Another close matchup. I think Vick's season has been amazing (as everyone else) but chinks in the armor are showing. Most glaringly is the fact that Reid will not run the ball to keep the pressure off Vick. And the injuries IMO have caught up to the Eagles. It will still be close as it is in Philly. But I expect the Packers offense to do just enough to get by the Eagles.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've felt all season long that the Packers are the best team in the NFC. I'm still scratching my head as to how they ended up being the last team to gain entry to the party. I think the Eagles are the second best team in the NFC which makes it very interesting that they're playing each other in the first round of the playoffs! I think this ends up being the best game of the entire postseason.

I'm picking Green Bay as I like Rodgers chances of moving the ball at will on Philly's secondary. The Eagles D isn't the same when Samuel is banged up and they have to play reserves. Granted Asante got to rest yesterday but Philly will still be without rookie safety Nate Allen.

Vick is a formidable opponent and makes plays even when the D does everything right. However I think defenses are scheming against him better than they did in the beginning of the year and he's getting hit a lot more.

I think the winner of this game represents the NFC.

34-27 Packers

 
I've felt all season long that the Packers are the best team in the NFC. I'm still scratching my head as to how they ended up being the last team to gain entry to the party. I think the Eagles are the second best team in the NFC which makes it very interesting that they're playing each other in the first round of the playoffs! I think this ends up being the best game of the entire postseason.I'm picking Green Bay as I like Rodgers chances of moving the ball at will on Philly's secondary. The Eagles D isn't the same when Samuel is banged up and they have to play reserves. Granted Asante got to rest yesterday but Philly will still be without rookie safety Nate Allen. Vick is a formidable opponent and makes plays even when the D does everything right. However I think defenses are scheming against him better than they did in the beginning of the year and he's getting hit a lot more. I think the winner of this game represents the NFC.34-27 Packers
I agree that the winner could be the best in the NFC, I just don't think it is the packers. I also would argue the best teams in the NFC are all in the wildcard round.37-28 Eagles
 
I am not saying the same thing is gonna happen this year, but remember last year how great the Packers defense was talked about being going into the playoffs? And then Kurt Warner and the Cardinals tore that defense to absolute shreds in the first round. Again, not saying it will happen again, but just something to keep in mind.
This defense is better having been in the system for two full seasons under Capers now. But I hear what you are saying and fear a similar letdown.
 
I am not saying the same thing is gonna happen this year, but remember last year how great the Packers defense was talked about being going into the playoffs? And then Kurt Warner and the Cardinals tore that defense to absolute shreds in the first round. Again, not saying it will happen again, but just something to keep in mind.
This defense is better having been in the system for two full seasons under Capers now. But I hear what you are saying and fear a similar letdown.
That and look at last year's D.They were beaten by several good QBs during the year.This year they have held up even against the top QBs.Brady did not even light them up. Yes, the Pats scored...but don't just look at the total points...7 of that was an INT return, and another 7 after giving the Pats a very short field.The D has played pretty well all year long.Hopefully they get Jenkins back next week to give them even more of a boost.Shields and Williams will have their work cut out for them and hopefully they can keep Woodson near the LOS to help contain Vick.
 
Fire the Fat Man said:
smackdaddies said:
put me down as a packer fan who fears Vick and his scrambling abilities.
Nothing to worry about. The Eagles o-line is pathetic. Vick is wearing down, trouble reading blitzes the last 2 weeks. And the fat man won't run the ball.Plus Rodgers will destroy this secondary.
I really believe Philly needs to run the ball to beat the Packers. When Vick came in in the game early in the season Philly started a comeback but the Packers' defense has markedly improved since then. The Philly secondary will also need to step it up. This should be the best game of the weekend but we all know it doesn't always happen that way.
 
Mr.Pack said:
I'm guessing the opening line will be Philly -5
Really? Seems a bit high. Everyone will be all over the Packers. I can't see it being higher than 2 points either way.
 
Slider said:
Gopher State said:
Packers win by 10. The vikings made the blue print on how to beat the Eagles and Vick, and Green Bay will follow it to a T
That was a typical let down game. If they follow that they'll lose by 20.
Yeah because none of them could get up for a game that would have given them a 1st round bye?
 
I still have nightmares about Vick coming into Lambeau and owning the Pack a few years back. Pair that with further visions of 4th and 26, and I'm not really excited to face a Vick-Eagles combo.
Can we put this 4th and 26 bs to bed already. That was years ago, it has absolutely no effect on this game.
 
As a birds fan, I really hate this first round matchup. I'm not sure there's an NFC playoff team I would less like to face (including New Orleans and Atlanta). Green Bay matches up very well against Philly and we'll have to play our best to beat them.

That said, Andy Reid has a great record in playoff openers and the team is coming off a virtual bye (where Andy also has a stellar record), so Philly fans have more reasons than just Vick to be optimistic.

31 - 27 Philly.

 
Vick needs to recognize where the blitz is coming from and either call an audible or tell McCoy and Schmitt to block someone! He starts taking shots the Eagles are in trouble.
Can any homers actually chime in on this from a Philly Eagles standpoint. Serious question, have you EVER seen Mike Vick call an audible while behind center in an Eagles uniform? I have heard some rumors(and really that's all they are) that the guy, while one of the most unreal athletes I have ever seen, knows less than 20% of the Eagles whole playbook.Seriously though, one of the better arms I have ever seen and a coach who has obviously seen it all, and the guy cant beat pressure. Something isnt right there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Vick needs to recognize where the blitz is coming from and either call an audible or tell McCoy and Schmitt to block someone! He starts taking shots the Eagles are in trouble.
Can any homers actually chime in on this from a Philly Eagles standpoint. Serious question, have you EVER seen Mike Vick call an audible while behind center in an Eagles uniform? I have heard some rumors(and really that's all they are) that the guy, while one of the most unreal athletes I have ever seen, knows less than 20% of the Eagles whole playbook.Seriously though, one of the better arms I have ever seen and a coach who has obviously seen it all, and the guy cant beat pressure. Something isnt right there.
honestly? I think he has serious trouble reading certain blitz packages and teams have started to realize that. Like you said, the combo of Vick's ability and Reid tutelage should result in far less sacks. I am actually less worried about the Packers' defense than Rodgers v Birds secondary. I am hoping that:1. GB offense is still stuck in neutral like yesterday, and2. Reid has basically been preparing for GB for the last two weeks. also, please for the love of god, run the ball. :rolleyes:
 
Vick needs to recognize where the blitz is coming from and either call an audible or tell McCoy and Schmitt to block someone! He starts taking shots the Eagles are in trouble.
Can any homers actually chime in on this from a Philly Eagles standpoint. Serious question, have you EVER seen Mike Vick call an audible while behind center in an Eagles uniform? I have heard some rumors(and really that's all they are) that the guy, while one of the most unreal athletes I have ever seen, knows less than 20% of the Eagles whole playbook.Seriously though, one of the better arms I have ever seen and a coach who has obviously seen it all, and the guy cant beat pressure. Something isnt right there.
honestly? I think he has serious trouble reading certain blitz packages and teams have started to realize that. Like you said, the combo of Vick's ability and Reid tutelage should result in far less sacks. I am actually less worried about the Packers' defense than Rodgers v Birds secondary. I am hoping that:1. GB offense is still stuck in neutral like yesterday, and2. Reid has basically been preparing for GB for the last two weeks. also, please for the love of god, run the ball. :goodposting:
Reid said in his press conference today that Vick had already started preparing for GB last week. If GBs offense is stuck in neutral, Philly's right now is in reverse.
 
I think this promises to be the best game of wildcard week. Both teams can move the ball through the air, so there's going to be lots of points scored. I don't trust Vick in the playoffs; I'll go with the Pack in an upset. 27-23
I do... the guy handed the Packers their only home playoff loss in EVER after they went undefeated at home that year (2002?).

 
I still have nightmares about Vick coming into Lambeau and owning the Pack a few years back. Pair that with further visions of 4th and 26, and I'm not really excited to face a Vick-Eagles combo.
Can we put this 4th and 26 bs to bed already. That was years ago, it has absolutely no effect on this game.
Neither does what Vick did to the Pack while with Atlanta. Frankly, what happened last year (vs Arizona and Kurt Warner) has no bearing on this game either.If you're going to be nitpicky, at least be consistent. BTW - if I want to bring up the 1960 championship game, I'll bring that up too, even if it annoys you. Nobody on this board answers to you.
 
I think this promises to be the best game of wildcard week. Both teams can move the ball through the air, so there's going to be lots of points scored. I don't trust Vick in the playoffs; I'll go with the Pack in an upset. 27-23
I do... the guy handed the Packers their only home playoff loss in EVER after they went undefeated at home that year (2002?).
Yea but the Packers won the SB in 1997.Seriously, what the hell does 2002 have to do with Sundays game??

:bag:

 
Mr.Pack said:
bonesman said:
I think this promises to be the best game of wildcard week. Both teams can move the ball through the air, so there's going to be lots of points scored. I don't trust Vick in the playoffs; I'll go with the Pack in an upset. 27-23
I do... the guy handed the Packers their only home playoff loss in EVER after they went undefeated at home that year (2002?).
Yea but the Packers won the SB in 1997.Seriously, what the hell does 2002 have to do with Sundays game??

:goodposting:
It helps establish that Vick can be relied on in the playoffs. Being the first visiting QB in NFL history to win a playoff game at Lambeau Field is impressive. Tim says he doesn't trust Vick in the playoffs, do you trust Aaron Rodgers?
 
What I don't trust is a Packers D with a lot of injuries, not a lick of the defensive personnel of the Giants or the Vikings. Healthy Vick and D.Jax?

And Andy Reid loses sight of running the ball a lot. But he always finds it sometime. I guarantee those olineman are getting their screen timing down right now. My belief in why they haven't used it.

Trent Cole is Rodgers worse nightmare.

If the Pack win, BJ Raji will be the reason.

 
Mr.Pack said:
bonesman said:
I think this promises to be the best game of wildcard week. Both teams can move the ball through the air, so there's going to be lots of points scored. I don't trust Vick in the playoffs; I'll go with the Pack in an upset. 27-23
I do... the guy handed the Packers their only home playoff loss in EVER after they went undefeated at home that year (2002?).
Yea but the Packers won the SB in 1997.Seriously, what the hell does 2002 have to do with Sundays game??

:goodposting:
It helps establish that Vick can be relied on in the playoffs. Being the first visiting QB in NFL history to win a playoff game at Lambeau Field is impressive. Tim says he doesn't trust Vick in the playoffs, do you trust Aaron Rodgers?
I'm pretty sure Rodgers proved himself last season in the playoffs..............

 
Mr.Pack said:
bonesman said:
I think this promises to be the best game of wildcard week. Both teams can move the ball through the air, so there's going to be lots of points scored. I don't trust Vick in the playoffs; I'll go with the Pack in an upset. 27-23
I do... the guy handed the Packers their only home playoff loss in EVER after they went undefeated at home that year (2002?).
Yea but the Packers won the SB in 1997.Seriously, what the hell does 2002 have to do with Sundays game??

:confused:
It helps establish that Vick can be relied on in the playoffs. Being the first visiting QB in NFL history to win a playoff game at Lambeau Field is impressive. Tim says he doesn't trust Vick in the playoffs, do you trust Aaron Rodgers?
I'm pretty sure Rodgers proved himself last season in the playoffs..............
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona?

Yeah...he proved quite a bit....

 
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona? Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona? Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
It isn't laughable. It's :thumbup:
 
Alex P Keaton said:
I still have nightmares about Vick coming into Lambeau and owning the Pack a few years back. Pair that with further visions of 4th and 26, and I'm not really excited to face a Vick-Eagles combo.
Can we put this 4th and 26 bs to bed already. That was years ago, it has absolutely no effect on this game.
Neither does what Vick did to the Pack while with Atlanta. Frankly, what happened last year (vs Arizona and Kurt Warner) has no bearing on this game either.If you're going to be nitpicky, at least be consistent. BTW - if I want to bring up the 1960 championship game, I'll bring that up too, even if it annoys you. Nobody on this board answers to you.
I think the opener this season was the first Packer win in Philadelphia in my lifetime. The 4th/26 game is just one of many nightmares in our collective experience at the Vet/Linc. That, together with memories of Vick running all over the field in that Saturday night playoff game, will certainly have an impact on the way Packer fans look at this game.btw - the Packers are 2.5 pt underdogs at sportsbook.com.
 
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona? Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
Who is pinning the game on Rodgers? I think the lack of a defense was a pretty big part of the problem also. But your boy Aaron also played a pretty big role in the loss also obviously. Basically...he has proved nothing as far as playoff reliability goes.
 
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona? Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
Who is pinning the game on Rodgers? I think the lack of a defense was a pretty big part of the problem also. But your boy Aaron also played a pretty big role in the loss also obviously. Basically...he has proved nothing as far as playoff reliability goes.
I haven't checked the "playoff reliability" stats for Rodgers, but there's no question he has proven many times over his reliability in big games, starting with his very first start as a pro at home against the Vikings on national television and again and again in at least a dozen huge games since then.
 
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona? Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
Who is pinning the game on Rodgers? I think the lack of a defense was a pretty big part of the problem also. But your boy Aaron also played a pretty big role in the loss also obviously. Basically...he has proved nothing as far as playoff reliability goes.
I haven't checked the "playoff reliability" stats for Rodgers, but there's no question he has proven many times over his reliability in big games, starting with his very first start as a pro at home against the Vikings on national television and again and again in at least a dozen huge games since then.
Heehee.....but if/when he goes to 0-2 in the playoffs....is he still a big game QB? Do you have 12 fingers on each hand? I personally can only count a handful of "huge games" that Rodgers has played in. But I get the distinct feeling that our opinions will differ on what a "huge game" is .
 
Big games are just not playoff games. I'd say the Packers/Giants game last week was pretty big, since the winner basically controlled their destiny for a playoff spot in week 17, and Rodgers was fantastic in that game.

 
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona? Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
Who is pinning the game on Rodgers? I think the lack of a defense was a pretty big part of the problem also. But your boy Aaron also played a pretty big role in the loss also obviously. Basically...he has proved nothing as far as playoff reliability goes.
I haven't checked the "playoff reliability" stats for Rodgers, but there's no question he has proven many times over his reliability in big games, starting with his very first start as a pro at home against the Vikings on national television and again and again in at least a dozen huge games since then.
Heehee.....but if/when he goes to 0-2 in the playoffs....is he still a big game QB? Do you have 12 fingers on each hand? I personally can only count a handful of "huge games" that Rodgers has played in. But I get the distinct feeling that our opinions will differ on what a "huge game" is .
He's not "my boy". I could care less about the Packers or Rodgers. The Packers lost the game because of the defense. The only reason they were in the game was because of Rodgers. If he goes 0-2 in the playoffs and plays like he did against Arizona, I would say that he is most certainly a big game QB.
 
What I don't trust is a Packers D with a lot of injuries, not a lick of the defensive personnel of the Giants or the Vikings. Healthy Vick and D.Jax? And Andy Reid loses sight of running the ball a lot. But he always finds it sometime. I guarantee those olineman are getting their screen timing down right now. My belief in why they haven't used it. Trent Cole is Rodgers worse nightmare.If the Pack win, BJ Raji will be the reason.
Not a lick of the personnel of the Vikings?Remind me again how the Packers shredded the two defenses you mentioned while they were 2nd in the league in points against?Do you think that gets down without quality personnel?Raji, Matthews, Jenkins, Woodson, Williams, Collins.They are far better personnel wise than the Vikings are.
 
Big games are just not playoff games. I'd say the Packers/Giants game last week was pretty big, since the winner basically controlled their destiny for a playoff spot in week 17, and Rodgers was fantastic in that game.
LOL! The Giants were mentally dead in the water after losing to...wait for it...Vick and the Eagles in an even bigger game the week before. It's hard to recover from a loss like that. I saw that GB win coming a mile away, they would have won that game with a backup in there. I still don't understand how Rodgers had "proven" himself" in big games and Vick has not. The simple fact that Vick was the first QB to lead a team to a playoff win at Lambeau should be enough to dispell that notion. Instead, people point to a game where Rodgers threw for a bunch of yards and TDs IN A LOSS. If the Packers lose this weekend, I could care less if he throws for 500 yards and 5 TDs and Vick throws for 100 and 0 TDs. Those numbers will be as empty and meaningless as Eli Mannings numbers in the Week 15 game vs. Philly.
 
Packers will score points. I can't see Philly shutting them down.

Vick's run earlier in the season seems to have made people forget what he was like in Atlanta - he had some fantastic games, and then he had some where he had poor accuracy and poor decision making and looked just - terrible. Like he did against Minny a couple weeks ago. Philly's surrounding personnel is better than Atlanta's, but Vick is still capable of looking like Steve Young one game and Steve DeBerg the next. Which one shows up this weekend? Beats the hell out of me.

Pack 31

Eagles 30

But I wouldn't be surprised at an Eagles win either - I just figure it will be close.

 
Vick needs to recognize where the blitz is coming from and either call an audible or tell McCoy and Schmitt to block someone! He starts taking shots the Eagles are in trouble.
Can any homers actually chime in on this from a Philly Eagles standpoint. Serious question, have you EVER seen Mike Vick call an audible while behind center in an Eagles uniform? I have heard some rumors(and really that's all they are) that the guy, while one of the most unreal athletes I have ever seen, knows less than 20% of the Eagles whole playbook.Seriously though, one of the better arms I have ever seen and a coach who has obviously seen it all, and the guy cant beat pressure. Something isnt right there.
the guy never seems to call an audible at the line and he really didn't seem to tell either of his backs when the Vikings were bringing a delayed safety blitz. You'd think by now he'd know things like that but maybe not. Hopefully he wises up other wise Clay Matthews will destroy him.
 
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona? Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
:thumbup:
 
Snotbubbles said:
Big games are just not playoff games. I'd say the Packers/Giants game last week was pretty big, since the winner basically controlled their destiny for a playoff spot in week 17, and Rodgers was fantastic in that game.
LOL! The Giants were mentally dead in the water after losing to...wait for it...Vick and the Eagles in an even bigger game the week before. It's hard to recover from a loss like that. I saw that GB win coming a mile away, they would have won that game with a backup in there. I still don't understand how Rodgers had "proven" himself" in big games and Vick has not. The simple fact that Vick was the first QB to lead a team to a playoff win at Lambeau should be enough to dispell that notion. Instead, people point to a game where Rodgers threw for a bunch of yards and TDs IN A LOSS. If the Packers lose this weekend, I could care less if he throws for 500 yards and 5 TDs and Vick throws for 100 and 0 TDs. Those numbers will be as empty and meaningless as Eli Mannings numbers in the Week 15 game vs. Philly.
Link to who said this? :fishing:

 
Snotbubbles said:
Big games are just not playoff games. I'd say the Packers/Giants game last week was pretty big, since the winner basically controlled their destiny for a playoff spot in week 17, and Rodgers was fantastic in that game.
LOL! The Giants were mentally dead in the water after losing to...wait for it...Vick and the Eagles in an even bigger game the week before. It's hard to recover from a loss like that. I saw that GB win coming a mile away, they would have won that game with a backup in there. I still don't understand how Rodgers had "proven" himself" in big games and Vick has not. The simple fact that Vick was the first QB to lead a team to a playoff win at Lambeau should be enough to dispell that notion. Instead, people point to a game where Rodgers threw for a bunch of yards and TDs IN A LOSS. If the Packers lose this weekend, I could care less if he throws for 500 yards and 5 TDs and Vick throws for 100 and 0 TDs. Those numbers will be as empty and meaningless as Eli Mannings numbers in the Week 15 game vs. Philly.
Link to who said this? :confused:
I'm not being defensive. You're being defensive.
 
Snotbubbles said:
Big games are just not playoff games. I'd say the Packers/Giants game last week was pretty big, since the winner basically controlled their destiny for a playoff spot in week 17, and Rodgers was fantastic in that game.
LOL! The Giants were mentally dead in the water after losing to...wait for it...Vick and the Eagles in an even bigger game the week before. It's hard to recover from a loss like that. I saw that GB win coming a mile away, they would have won that game with a backup in there. I still don't understand how Rodgers had "proven" himself" in big games and Vick has not. The simple fact that Vick was the first QB to lead a team to a playoff win at Lambeau should be enough to dispell that notion. Instead, people point to a game where Rodgers threw for a bunch of yards and TDs IN A LOSS. If the Packers lose this weekend, I could care less if he throws for 500 yards and 5 TDs and Vick throws for 100 and 0 TDs. Those numbers will be as empty and meaningless as Eli Mannings numbers in the Week 15 game vs. Philly.
Link to who said this? :rant:
It's implicit in the conversation. The terms proven and reliable are being used interchangeably.
 
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona? Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
:hophead:
Rodgers' playoff record is 0-1. You can qualify it all you want; the result is the same. He has never won a playoff game, hence he has not proven anything.
 
Vick needs to recognize where the blitz is coming from and either call an audible or tell McCoy and Schmitt to block someone! He starts taking shots the Eagles are in trouble.
Can any homers actually chime in on this from a Philly Eagles standpoint. Serious question, have you EVER seen Mike Vick call an audible while behind center in an Eagles uniform? I have heard some rumors(and really that's all they are) that the guy, while one of the most unreal athletes I have ever seen, knows less than 20% of the Eagles whole playbook.Seriously though, one of the better arms I have ever seen and a coach who has obviously seen it all, and the guy cant beat pressure. Something isnt right there.
the guy never seems to call an audible at the line and he really didn't seem to tell either of his backs when the Vikings were bringing a delayed safety blitz. You'd think by now he'd know things like that but maybe not. Hopefully he wises up other wise Clay Matthews will destroy him.
My same thoughts in the few games I have seen him in as well(Dallas, NYG x2, Minnesota). Maybe he really doesn't know much of the playbook and at this point it is either, Run/Screen/Pass deep to Desean or Maclin. And if all else fails, run like you stole something.
 
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona? Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
:thumbup:
Rodgers' playoff record is 0-1. You can qualify it all you want; the result is the same. He has never won a playoff game, hence he has not proven anything.
He proved a lot to me. He proved that he could play a great game in a hostile playoff environment. I bet his performance is one of the best playoff performances by a losing QB that we've seen in a while. I'm not qualifying anything. I'm calling it as it is......the guy played a great game. They lost the game because of the defense.....period. If Vick had played a game like that and lost, I'm wondering what Eagles fans would be saying. For the record, the discussion was about Rodgers. I agree that Vick has also won big games.
 
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona?

Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
:goodposting:
Rodgers' playoff record is 0-1. You can qualify it all you want; the result is the same. He has never won a playoff game, hence he has not proven anything.
He proved a lot to me. He proved that he could play a great game in a hostile playoff environment. I bet his performance is one of the best playoff performances by a losing QB that we've seen in a while. I'm not qualifying anything. I'm calling it as it is......the guy played a great game. They lost the game because of the defense.....period. If Vick had played a game like that and lost, I'm wondering what Eagles fans would be saying.

For the record, the discussion was about Rodgers. I agree that Vick has also won big games.
No way man. I love Aaron Rodgers, but he has to shoulder some of the blame for that loss. FFS! His turnover led directly to the winning score. How is that the defenses' fault? The defense was put on their heels in the first place because of Rodgers.

 
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona? Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
:mellow:
Rodgers' playoff record is 0-1. You can qualify it all you want; the result is the same. He has never won a playoff game, hence he has not proven anything.
This whole "PROVEN" thing doesn't mean #### to be quite honest. What does "PROVEN" even mean? It certainly doesn't guarantee future success. Brett Favre won a super bowl, does that mean he's PROVEN that he won't bust in big games? It's about the dumbest thing in sports.
 
No way man. I love Aaron Rodgers, but he has to shoulder some of the blame for that loss. FFS! His turnover led directly to the winning score. How is that the defenses' fault? The defense was put on their heels in the first place because of Rodgers.
The difference in that game was that Kurt Warner played better than Aaron Rodgers. Both defenses were terrible - it was the highest-scoring playoff game in NFL history. I think there were two punts the entire game. Both teams moved the ball completely at will on the ground and in the air. Rodgers had a good game, and set a record for most passing yards in a playoff game in franchise history. Warner played probably the most perfect game I've ever seen a quarterback play that day. He was 29 of 33 attempts with 5 tds and was completely unstoppable. It seemed that blitzing him was a huge mistake, but it was even worse to sit back in coverage. He was inhuman that day.
 
You mean the game that he started out with an INT that led to 7 points for Arizona...and that he ended with a fumble that led to 7 points for Arizona? Yeah...he proved quite a bit....
Yup thats the game. The same game that Rodgers threw for 423 yards, 4 tds vs 1 int, ran for a td, had a 121.3 rating and led the team to 45 pts. Not bad for a playoff debut. Also the fumble that ended the game was extremely questionable as a penalty could have been called. Regardless, pinning that game on Rodgers is laughable............
:IBTL:
Rodgers' playoff record is 0-1. You can qualify it all you want; the result is the same. He has never won a playoff game, hence he has not proven anything.
This whole "PROVEN" thing doesn't mean #### to be quite honest. What does "PROVEN" even mean? It certainly doesn't guarantee future success. Brett Favre won a super bowl, does that mean he's PROVEN that he won't bust in big games? It's about the dumbest thing in sports.
This is why I more or less agree with his statement that Rodgers "has not proven anything." He's not a trial lawyer or a mathematician. I don't really know how football players prove things, so I would agree with the statement that he hasn't proven anything insofar as the concept is entirely meaningless.
 
No way man. I love Aaron Rodgers, but he has to shoulder some of the blame for that loss. FFS! His turnover led directly to the winning score. How is that the defenses' fault? The defense was put on their heels in the first place because of Rodgers.
The difference in that game was that Kurt Warner played better than Aaron Rodgers. Both defenses were terrible - it was the highest-scoring playoff game in NFL history. I think there were two punts the entire game. Both teams moved the ball completely at will on the ground and in the air. Rodgers had a good game, and set a record for most passing yards in a playoff game in franchise history. Warner played probably the most perfect game I've ever seen a quarterback play that day. He was 29 of 33 attempts with 5 tds and was completely unstoppable. It seemed that blitzing him was a huge mistake, but it was even worse to sit back in coverage. He was inhuman that day.
Yahoo! Sports quoted Rolle as saying, "I'll face Drew Brees any day of the week before I face [Rodgers] again" after Rodgers threw for a Green Bay playoff-record 422 yards and four touchdowns in the Cardinals' 51-45 overtime victory in the first-round NFC playoff game.Rodgers wasn't the issue on that day. He may be on Sunday, but last year, on that day, he was not.
 
No way man. I love Aaron Rodgers, but he has to shoulder some of the blame for that loss. FFS! His turnover led directly to the winning score. How is that the defenses' fault? The defense was put on their heels in the first place because of Rodgers.
The difference in that game was that Kurt Warner played better than Aaron Rodgers. Both defenses were terrible - it was the highest-scoring playoff game in NFL history. I think there were two punts the entire game. Both teams moved the ball completely at will on the ground and in the air. Rodgers had a good game, and set a record for most passing yards in a playoff game in franchise history. Warner played probably the most perfect game I've ever seen a quarterback play that day. He was 29 of 33 attempts with 5 tds and was completely unstoppable. It seemed that blitzing him was a huge mistake, but it was even worse to sit back in coverage. He was inhuman that day.
Yahoo! Sports quoted Rolle as saying, "I'll face Drew Brees any day of the week before I face [Rodgers] again" after Rodgers threw for a Green Bay playoff-record 422 yards and four touchdowns in the Cardinals' 51-45 overtime victory in the first-round NFC playoff game.Rodgers wasn't the issue on that day. He may be on Sunday, but last year, on that day, he was not.
The fact remains that his 2 turnovers cost the Packers 14 points and the 2nd one ended the game. Did he have a fantastic game overall? Yep! But that does not absolve him of any fault for losing the game. He had a direct hand in putting the Packers in an early hole...and a direct hand in ending the Packers season on a sour note. I would certainly call that an issue.
 
No way man. I love Aaron Rodgers, but he has to shoulder some of the blame for that loss. FFS! His turnover led directly to the winning score. How is that the defenses' fault? The defense was put on their heels in the first place because of Rodgers.
The difference in that game was that Kurt Warner played better than Aaron Rodgers. Both defenses were terrible - it was the highest-scoring playoff game in NFL history. I think there were two punts the entire game. Both teams moved the ball completely at will on the ground and in the air. Rodgers had a good game, and set a record for most passing yards in a playoff game in franchise history. Warner played probably the most perfect game I've ever seen a quarterback play that day. He was 29 of 33 attempts with 5 tds and was completely unstoppable. It seemed that blitzing him was a huge mistake, but it was even worse to sit back in coverage. He was inhuman that day.
Yahoo! Sports quoted Rolle as saying, "I'll face Drew Brees any day of the week before I face [Rodgers] again" after Rodgers threw for a Green Bay playoff-record 422 yards and four touchdowns in the Cardinals' 51-45 overtime victory in the first-round NFC playoff game.Rodgers wasn't the issue on that day. He may be on Sunday, but last year, on that day, he was not.
The fact remains that his 2 turnovers cost the Packers 14 points and the 2nd one ended the game. Did he have a fantastic game overall? Yep! But that does not absolve him of any fault for losing the game. He had a direct hand in putting the Packers in an early hole...and a direct hand in ending the Packers season on a sour note. I would certainly call that an issue.
And he was the biggest factor for putting the Packers in a position to win when there defense didn't show up. Maybe we have a differing of opinions but I don't see fumbles that were caused by an o-line collapse as a quarterback fault. For the record I would take Vick over Rodgers for this game alone.
 
Just because he has lsot exactly 1 playoff game does not mean the guy is or will not eventually be a very good post season QB. Sadly I think that might come to fruition this Sunday. Trent Cole needs to pound his head in!!!

 
Is there any news on the availability of Cullen Jenkins?
Nothing that I've seen since McCarthy's comments on Monday:
Green Bay — Green Bay Packers coach Mike McCarthy opened his Monday news conference with words he has rarely uttered the day after a game."I have zero injuries to report from last night's game," McCarthy said.That's right. The Packers, with 14 players on injured reserve and four more held out of the 10-3 victory over the Chicago Bears, didn't need to schedule a single MRI, X-ray or orthopedic exam.Now the attention turns to defensive end Cullen Jenkins (calf), fullback Korey Hall (knee), linebacker Frank Zombo (knee) and safety Atari Bigby (groin) - and which, if any, of them will be available for the wild-card playoff game against the Philadelphia Eagles on Sunday."They will be going through testing today and tomorrow," McCarthy said. "They'll be evaluated on Wednesday morning. They're making progress and we're hopeful that maybe they can have a trial return for Wednesday."Jenkins was in the locker room Sunday and said his calf, which has bothered him on and off since training camp, felt as good as it has felt in weeks."I should be OK to play," he said. "This was the first week where we felt like we had a realistic shot."The biggest question is whether Jenkins' calf is strong enough to withstand the rigors of a game, simply because he has been off it so long."I did some jogging last week," he said. "It wasn't the best running. It still feels a little weak. But the fact I was able to make it through it without anything grabbing (was a positive). I did some agility and I can go through agility pretty fast."The Packers' defense has performed at a high level without Jenkins, but it wouldn't hurt to have him back to help contain Eagles quarterback Michael Vick."Hopefully, I'll get out there and chase him around a little bit," Jenkins said.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top