Brock Middlebrook
Footballguy
so, foe even suggesting that there is a team that night be beeter than Packers, OP is trolling? 
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Saints are better than the Packers (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ponchsox
- Start date
so, foe even suggesting that there is a team that night be beeter than Packers, OP is trolling? 
sspunisher
Footballguy
Would laugh at this a week or two ago. But with all the GB injuries, the Saints are really going to be a huge obstacle for them if the two teams meet.
Ghost Rider
Footballguy
The Saints will have a tough team winning at GB in the January cold, but they need SF to lose a game first so they can grab the 2 seed, otherwise they'll have to win in the SF slop first before potentially meeting the Packers.
W1cked
Footballguy
Packers are better than the RamsRams are better than the saints Wow this is fun!
griff321
Footballguy
You should have seen James Starks do the exact same thing against the Vikings, but only better. Running over a defense that has given up for the day is nothing to brag about.The only way that the Saints have a chance to beat the Pack is if they take out Rodgers. It's not a stretch considering they're full of cheap shot artists. Did you see them killing it today by going high/low on jared allen late in the fourth or twisting Peterson's ankle back and forth at the bottom of a pile?
The pack are going to be able to change plays at the line and not have to deal with insane crowd noise. That's a good enough advantage right there.
valhallan
Footballguy
Such an amazing game that seems to be overlooked after all that has happened this season. All NFL fans should want to witness that slugfest again.
Neil Beaufort Zod
Footballguy
Why? A Saints/Packers championship game would look the most likely to me. Wildcard: Saints defeat whatever wildcard team they play at home.The garbage that wins the NFC East plays the other wildcard.Conference: Saints travel to San Francisco. Anything can happen, but advantage Saints.The garbage that wins the NFC East/the other wildcard goes to Green Bay and loses.Conference Championship: Saints at Packers. Green Bay fans would be nervous for good reason. Their defense is awful and Brees isn't a dome prettyboy QB who can't make throws in weather.Now, that's not to say the Saints would even be the favorite. Their defense is also lousy and Green Bay is, of course, for real. Get Jordy Nelson going with Finley and they can hang with anyone. I'd call it a pick 'em. The only team that can beat the Packers in the NFC playoffs is the Saints imo.
Pnishthm
Footballguy
Ignorance at it's finest in the shark pool
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
No, the trolling is from a few distinct people.I did not intend to say that this thread is trolling (some of the responses most certainly are).Sorry if it came off that way.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Gopher is a Vikings fan who now claims the Packers (since last year coincidentally).But yes, his stats about the Saints historical record in the cold is about as relevant as what Vick did to a Favre led Packer team.Both are pretty meaningless.'SaintsInDome2006 said:Didn't Favre and the Pack lose to Vick and the Falcons in Lambeau one year?http://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200301040gnb.htmGB had never lost a playoff game at home before that, right?And they lost to a dome team, and to Vick, in 20 degree weather? How did that happen?The Saints were never invited to this party in the first place.'Verminator said:'Gopher State said:
GeauxTigers
Footballguy
It would be a hell of a game. Looking forward to the Saints marching into Lambeau Field in the playoffs.
meanjoegreen
Footballguy
Ingram has to stay off the injury list first.'Breesisdaman said:
scrumptrulescent
Footballguy
As a Packer fan I'd love the NFC Championship game to be NO and GB. It would be entertaining as hell to watch and I believe NO and GB are the 2 top teams in the NFC so I'd want the Packers to meet and beat the best competition.
guderian
Footballguy
I've never bought the "cold weather" stuff. Historically teams that have done well in the cold weather have usually been built to take advantage of it with a strong defense and running game. In my opinion, the Packers weren't built as a cold weather team. I mean it's not like everyone that plays for the Saints was born in New Orleans...Ingram grew up in NJ, Brees played at Purdue whereas Rodgers is a California boy, etc. People act as if they Saints are going to run in terror at the first site of a snow flake. 
Breesisdaman
Footballguy
Ha Ha always nice to hear the opinion of an Atlanta falcons fan.'Truman said:
ATC1
Footballguy
I don't think it is the cold as much as it is the HFA. Saints do play better at home with the crowd behind them.I've never bought the "cold weather" stuff. Historically teams that have done well in the cold weather have usually been built to take advantage of it with a strong defense and running game. In my opinion, the Packers weren't built as a cold weather team. I mean it's not like everyone that plays for the Saints was born in New Orleans...Ingram grew up in NJ, Brees played at Purdue whereas Rodgers is a California boy, etc. People act as if they Saints are going to run in terror at the first site of a snow flake.
sho nuff
Footballguy
How much of that #8 is Sproles?He is their big advantage in the run game. Do you disagree?Thomas and Ivory are not much different or better than Grant and StarksIngram has not been the most impressive thing in the world either.On a cold slick track, IMO that neutralizes Sproles a bit and makes it much more even.In the dome or in good weather and good turf (like you saw in game one)...Id agree with you.Later in the year on a chewed up cold hard field...I disagree at how big the advantage is for them.Now this also assumes GB gets Sitton back (our better run blocking guard) and Bulaga or Clifton can come back healthy at tackle.
The Saints average 4.7 YPC, the Packers average 4.0 YPC. Not sure how the argument can go any other way.The Saints also have a much better short passing game with Sproles/Graham/L. Moore.However, the Packers are much better down the field passing team. The Packers average 9.2 YPA, Saints average 8.2.
CentralPA
Footballguy
The Packers and the Saints should be the top two seeds in the NFC. All I am going to say though is that it is rare the the top 2 seeds in any sort of playoff format end up playing each other, especially in the NFL. It's not a foregone conclusion the NFC Championship is GB and NO.
CentralPA
Footballguy
the D is very good but if they don't have Patrick Willis though that is a big loss.
sho nuff
Footballguy
I think the injury to Willis...plus the bad redzone offense is why they are down on this.Defense is good...very good. But they will have to score points to beat teams like GB and NO.And with Rodgers and Brees under center vs. Alex Smith...it just gives the Saints and Packers a large advantage in the postseason.
packersfan
Footballguy
I'm scared s******s about this matchup but it's definitely the NFC Title Game I want to see.
packersfan
Footballguy
True but I'd take all four of the Saints' RBs ahead of anybody the Packers have. The difference between Sproles, Thomas, a healthy Ingram and Grant/Starks/Kuhn/Saine is gigantic. Ivory doesn't impress me a great deal but I'd take him over anybody on the Packers' roster too. The Saints have offensive balance. The Packers typically don't. I don't trust either defense but Green Bay's has been far more effective at forcing turnovers (yesterday's game not included). That and likely homefield advantage is why I'd pick the Packers over the Saints. But the Saints damn near beat Green Bay at Lambeau in the opener and I have no doubt they could win their in the playoffs.'sho nuff said:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
The Saints advantage in the run game is a stable of 4 backs, each of whom is capable of a featured role in the offense. Ivory/Thomas/Ingram will be huge assets, and if the defense digs in against power runs, Sproles and Thomas are more than capable of making them pay on the screen.'sho nuff said:
zoonation
Footballguy
Good points for sure...I just wouldn't want to play them as opposed to, say the Cowboys. I think Green Bay's big edge will come in the week prior tot he championship game when they have the easier, non-San Fran, matchup.No Willis is huge though. No doubt.
sho nuff
Footballguy
Sure...depth is an advantage.I just think Sproles is the main advantage on that team. Ivory/Thomas/Ingram...I don't think they are special or difference makers to any huge extent over Starks/Grant. Sproles is (he was killing the Packers in that first game). That is what I think weather and a bad field could neutralize as far as their advantage there.
packersfan
Footballguy
Thomas averaged over 6 YPC in the Week 1 matchup and caught 4 passes for 37 yards. He's a better back than people give him credit for being.I think Ingram is very talented too but he wasn't a factor in that game and given his turf toe injury he may not be a factor for the remainder of the season.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
As far as the running game goes - Sproles, Thomas, and Ingram are all within 25 yards of one another on the season, and Ivory just got back on the roster a couple weeks ago from a long-term injury. The Saints are on pace to completely shatter their team 3rd-down conversion record, in great part because of Ingram's short-yardage pickups. Thomas is a very, very talented back who was ahead of Mendenhall in college. Ivory runs really, really violently. I don't know if he'd be available for the next game or lying in traction, but Iif he played in a cold-weather game against the Packers he'd make a difference.
wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
Your joking about the whole, Brees is better than Rodgers thing right? Even this year, Rodgers is putting him to shame. Yea, Brees throws for more yards, but he also has 5 more picks and 3 less TDs... Not even mentioning the mobility advantage... Right now its Rodgers, Brady , Breesfor their career's its Brady, Rodgers, Brees ...and no one in there right mind would question this before yesterdays loss... so stop it'SaintsInDome2006 said:
guderian
Footballguy
Sproles has accounted for just 28% of their rushing yards (496 of 1755). I'm not sure why you want to focus your 'neutralization' on Sproles. He's from Iowa and played at Kansas State, so I'm sure running in cold weather conditions isn't novel for him. Also, Thomas is a 5.0 ypc back and is deadly on screen passes. I agree that Ingram hasn't been great, but Ingram and Ivory add a between-the-tackles dimension to the running game. When I look at the offenses I see rough parity in the passing game and a big advantage for the Saints in the running game that extends across all dimensions--with a speedy Sproles, multifacted Thomas and tough inside runners in Ingram and Ivory. Hey, I think it will be a tough game, I just think that people are playing the 'cold weather' card and thinking it trumps everything else. Playing the Bears in 2006 concerned me because they were built for that type of game (strong D and running game with Jones and Benson) whereas we were more of a traditional dome passing team. I think Payton has re-modeled this team with a goal to win championships and that means being able to play outside in cold weather.
packersfan
Footballguy
I agree. I'm not buying into the cold-weather idea at all for a number of reasons, not the least of which is Brees is damn good and Green Bay's defense is terrible. I think these are two very evenly matched teams.
I don't think Rodgers is having a better season than Brees...they are both having unbelievable years, one no better than the other; and I felt that before yesterday's loss.Career wise Brees has done more statistically though Rodgers career has been shorter, so again, I am not sure how you can simply say that Rodgers has had a better career...what Drew Brees has done in New Orleans has been incredible.
Last edited by a moderator:
LC512
Footballguy
Pierre Thomas would be the clear cut starting RB on the Packers.
sho nuff
Footballguy
5 carries 31 yards with a 21 yard run....Im not going to get all worried about a guy averaging 6 YPC with 5 carries.Thomas is an good back...nothing special (kind of like Starks and Grant).
sho nuff
Footballguy
I disagree...both in talent and in what McCarthy does (which is very similar to what Payton does).There is no clear lead back.
wiscstlatlmia
Footballguy
Look at the stats from the past 4 years, its not close if you add them all up . How can you say Brees having as good of a year as Rodgers?Past 4 years(since Rodgers Became a starter):
Brees
Passing
COMP:1641 ATT:2390 CMP%:68.6 AVG:7.88 YDS:18,857 TD:138 INT:61 RAT:100.7
Rushing
ATT:81 YDS:101 AVG:1.3 TD:3 1st:17
Rodgers
Passing
CMP:1325 ATT:2025 CMP%65.4 YDS:16574 AVG:8.18 TD:126 INT:37 RAT:103.8
Rushing
ATT:234 YDS:1,118 AVG:4.8 TD: 16 1st:85
Last edited by a moderator:
Adding in all the rushing yardage, Rodgers is still short on Brees' passing yards.The biggest difference I see is INTs, Brees has a lot more.Look at the stats from the past 4 years, its not close if you add them all up . How can you say Brees having as good of a year as Rodgers?Past 4 yearsBreesassingCOMP:1641 ATT:2390 CMP%:68.6 AVG:7.88 YDS:18,857 TD:138 INT:61 RAT:100.7 Rushing:ATT:81 YDS:101 AVG:1.3 TD:3 1st:17Rodgers:CMP:1325 ATT:2025 CMP%65.4 YDS:16574 AVG:8.18 TD:126 INT:37 RAT:103.8 ATT:234 YDS:1,118 AVG:4.8 TD: 16 1st:85
packersfan
Footballguy
I don't think Thomas is special either but I think he's head-and-shoulders above Starks and Grant. It's not even close for me really. Not sure I'd take him over 2008/2009 Grant but this isn't 2009 anymore. I think the Saints have a sizeable advantage over the Packers in the running game, especially when you consider how good Sproles and Thomas both are as receivers too.
Dark Matter
Footballguy
Green Bay ain't gonna do diddly poo in the playoffs unless their O-line gets healthy.
sho nuff
Footballguy
As receivers I agree.Though, always hard to gauge GB's RBs as receivers as they don't ask them to do it much...or are always needing to stay in for protection.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
Interesting. What has changed for GB? Other than Nick Collins being injured?
sho nuff
Footballguy
Collins is the big one.And recently Bishop being out.
Hawk looks worse this year than last.
No Jenkins and the lack of anything consistent opposite of Matthews.
Corners look to be playing softer than before too.
Raji not getting as much push up the middle forcing which helped Matthews some last year too.
I don't think there is one thing to pinpoint really.
Similar threads
