Someone has to explain this to me

[Kaika]

This may have been mentioned here earlier ,if so, I'm sorry for the repost.

But can someone tell me why ESPN, and others in the media feel that it is more critical for the Boys to have Home field advantage throughout the playoffs, more than Green Bay, I know playing at Lambeau field can be tough, (with the weather and all), but the last time I looked ,our running game was head and shoulders over G.B.'s. Being that Green Bay has never won in Dallas in many a moon wouldn't you think it would be more critical for them to have HFA.





To me it's just another slam at The Boys .

Man, I hate the media sometimes.

 

[theogt]

I'd be willing to bet they have more rushing yards and a higher Rushing YPA than us over the past 8 games.

 

[Kaika]

I'd be willing to bet they have more rushing yards and a higher Rushing YPA than us over the past 8 games.

You may be correct ,but do you think it's because of our scheme or do you honestly believe that their running game is better than Ours.

When we run.

Which I think we should definitely start doing in the near future.

 

[theogt]

You may be correct ,but do you think it's because of our scheme or do you honestly believe that their running game is better than Ours.

When we run.

Which I think we should definitely start doing in the near future.

I think Ryan Grant is an extremely good back and they're beginning to expand upon their running game because of it. I also think he has more upside than Barber and is clearly a better back than Julius (which is ironic given he was a backup for Julius for one season).

By the way, I'm pretty sure that since he's been starting for Green Bay he's the leading rusher in the league. If you averaged those 8 games over a season he'd have 1544 yards and 12 TDs.

 

[big dog cowboy]

By the way, I'm pretty sure that since he's been starting for Green Bay he's the leading rusher in the league.

That is true. But it doesn't mean a whole lot. With many teams going with a rotation at RB the number of RB's that will rack up huge numbers isn't as likely any more.

 

[iceberg]

This may have been mentioned here earlier ,if so, I'm sorry for the repost.

But can someone tell me why ESPN, and others in the media feel that it is more critical for the Boys to have Home field advantage throughout the playoffs, more than Green Bay, I know playing at Lambeau field can be tough, (with the weather and all), but the last time I looked ,our running game was head and shoulders over G.B.'s. Being that Green Bay has never won in Dallas in many a moon wouldn't you think it would be more critical for them to have HFA.

To me it's just another slam at The Boys .

Man, I hate the media sometimes.

i wish someone could explain to me why people take the media so personally.

 

[theogt]

That is true. But it doesn't mean a whole lot. With many teams going with a rotation at RB the number of RB's that will rack up huge numbers isn't as likely any more.

I think means a whole lot in terms of refuting the argument that they have a poor running game.

Regardless, the idea that being the leading rusher doesn't mean much seems a little silly to me.

 

[Kaika]

I also think that running the ball 16-18 times per game may have something to do with the low output.
The pass, pass, pass, scheme is what bothers me some.

 

[theogt]

I also think that running the ball 16-18 times per game may have something to do with the low output.
The pass, pass, pass, scheme is what bothers me some.

That's why I said they have a better rushing YPC than us in those 8 games.

 

[Kaika]

But getting back to the question. Why do all the so called exerts think that The Boys will have more of a problem in GB, than GB will have in Dallas ,where they can't win????

 

[big dog cowboy]

the idea that being the leading rusher doesn't mean much seems a little silly to me.

Why? You really can't compare systems and that is what you are trying to do. Just because a specific team employs a one back system that RB is going to get more yards than JJ or MBIII. Back in the day when Dorsett and Walker shared carries neither racked up huge numbers. Did that mean they were any less significant?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I think it's just the whole Lambeau mystique thing. And the idea that a warm weather team couldn't possibly play well in the cold.

But the media should check who the defensive coordinator for the other team was when Green Bay lost its only playoff game at home.

If we had to go up there, I still think we'd win. This is a tough team that plays well on the road.

 

[tyke1doe]

This may have been mentioned here earlier ,if so, I'm sorry for the repost.

But can someone tell me why ESPN, and others in the media feel that it is more critical for the Boys to have Home field advantage throughout the playoffs, more than Green Bay, I know playing at Lambeau field can be tough, (with the weather and all), but the last time I looked ,our running game was head and shoulders over G.B.'s. Being that Green Bay has never won in Dallas in many a moon wouldn't you think it would be more critical for them to have HFA.





To me it's just another slam at The Boys .

Man, I hate the media sometimes.

Not the "they hate the Cowboys" bemoaning.

Here are the reasons why:

1. The Cowboys have been considered the No. 1 team in the NFC for a while now.
2. Because they are considered the No. 1, they are expected to have home field advantage.
3. The Packers are used to playing outdoors in frigid weather.
4. The Cowboys have never won in Lambeau Field.
5. The Packers played the Cowboys close with two of their best players out.

Had the Packers been considered the No. 1 team in the NFC from the start of the season, maybe it would be different. But Dallas is in a position where they're trying to defend home field advantage. It is theirs to lose.

That's why, IMO, there's more emphasis on Dallas getting it than the Packers.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

JMHO, but I don't think he was asking why there was more talk about us losing it right now, but why there's been so much talk that they could beat us in a rematch at Texas Stadium (with Woodson and KGB back, etc.) but that if we had to go to Lambeau it would be a death sentence.

And I think he's right. The sentiment seems to be that we *have* to have home field or we're doomed. Why should we be doomed if they wouldn't be?

 

[trueblue1687]

Not the "they hate the Cowboys" bemoaning.

Here are the reasons why:

1. The Cowboys have been considered the No. 1 team in the NFC for a while now.
2. Because they are considered the No. 1, they are expected to have home field advantage.
3. The Packers are used to playing outdoors in frigid weather.
4. The Cowboys have never won in Lambeau Field.
5. The Packers played the Cowboys close with two of their best players out.

Had the Packers been considered the No. 1 team in the NFC from the start of the season, maybe it would be different. But Dallas is in a position where they're trying to defend home field advantage. It is theirs to lose.

That's why, IMO, there's more emphasis on Dallas getting it than the Packers.

There is a speck of truth to the "hate the Cowboys" part, so don't be too quick to dismiss that. Here's why:

1. The Cowboys have a brash owner who some consider a maddler.
2. Fans (opposing fans that is and yes, mediots are fans too...most with hidden agendas) remember the swagger of the 90s and the player problems as well.
3. People naturally like dirty laundry and to see failure...which is juicier for you to write about: a winning team that JUST goes out and wins, or a team with inner conflict?? Do tell.

I think the bias is out there. I've listened and read alot about this team over the past 30+ years. This year has been slightly different due to the winning record (nobody cared when the 'Boys were mediocre), each game had the the cowboys as favorites (except v. the Pats). That is true. However, I noticed there was usually skepticism with that pick each game. Remeber when we played the Bears...how about the Pats (most would have had the team just go ahead and concede a win to the Pats, then when the loss came...it was considered just a complete domination, a blow out - which wasn't true of course)...then the team was going to face the mighty Brett Favre and would get shredded by the passing attack of the Pack. So, you can see that they haven't really been a FAVORITE...maybe #1 because of record, but the respect really hasn't been totally there.

As to why people think Dallas needs to avoid Lambeau...it's the weather of course and nothing more (look back to 1967 and there you will see where the "frozen tundra crap started....about the only time it's ever been that bad in games of any significance). Holla!

 

[pancakeman]

Lambeau Field in January presents exceptional conditions that the Packers encounter often and the Cowboys almost never.

Texas Stadium in January presents unexceptional conditions that wouldn't be unfamiliar to either team.

I don't think the "media" view is terribly off-base here.

/grew up in Texas, now live in the upper midwest.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

By the way, I'm pretty sure that since he's been starting for Green Bay he's the leading rusher in the league. If you averaged those 8 games over a season he'd have 1544 yards and 12 TDs.

I can think of another running back who looked spectacular over half a season as well.

 

[Meat-O-Rama]

I think it's just the whole Lambeau mystique thing. And the idea that a warm weather team couldn't possibly play well in the cold.

But the media should check who the defensive coordinator for the other team was when Green Bay lost its only playoff game at home.

If we had to go up there, I still think we'd win. This is a tough team that plays well on the road.

That's it in a nutsehll. Lambeau mystique, and the idea thatit's more difficult ofr other teams to play in the snow than it is for GB.

 

[theogt]

I can think of another running back who looked spectacular over half a season as well.

Good point. But no one could say that we had a bad running game that half season either.

 

[Kaika]

JMHO, but I don't think he was asking why there was more talk about us losing it right now, but why there's been so much talk that they could beat us in a rematch at Texas Stadium (with Woodson and KGB back, etc.) but that if we had to go to Lambeau it would be a death sentence.

And I think he's right. The sentiment seems to be that we *have* to have home field or we're doomed. Why should we be doomed if they wouldn't be?

Thank You,


But all the other responses were appreciated as well.

I'm not as up on the Boys as most here so I really appreciate the input.


All I can tell you is that since I don't have the NFL network I hope the beer is cold at the local sports bar tonite.
My son ,son in law and a bunch of us are going to give it hell tonite.


GO BOYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:starspin