The Packers

[Stryker44]

Anybody been following them this year? How did they go from a talented (yet very soft team mentally), to the grittiest team in the NFL able to beat the undisputedly best team (Patriots), handily?

 

[CF74]

They have a darn good QB.....

 

[EST_1986]

Elite QB and a pretty good RB.

 

[DFWJC]

I'd hardly say they easily handled the Patriots.
They were at home and won 26-21.
NE had the ball with a chance to go for the win.
GB scored 3 points in the entire 2nd half.

But to answer the rest of the question..
GB was missing Aaron Rodgers for much of last season. That alone means a ton.
They were also missing either Jordy Nelson or Randal Cobb for most of last season.
Lacy is rolling and the oline is a bit more cohesive.

They added Peppers and Clinton-Dix and have several key players healthy..though they have had injuries.

Anyway.
the year boefre last the lost in the 1nd rd of the playoffs
The year before that they went 15-1 and lost to the SB champs
The year before that they WON the Super Bowl.

In other words, when healthy they have been contenders for several years now.

They have lost 4 games, .btw.

 

[FloridaRob]

Is this an ask the expert thread on the Packers? LOL! Well glad I showed up. The easiest answer is lack of injuries. Last year Rodgers, Cobb, Lacy, Finley, Matthews, Bulaga, and a host of others were hurt. By the time Rodgers got back the team was still a shell of itself from earlier in the year.

Also moving Matthews to the middle seems to have stabilized the defense. Getting A J Hawk off the field is a plus even if they leave his position vacant. HaHa is a very good safety and solidified the back end after the crazy safety play since Collins was hurt.

People want to say that the Packers squeaked by the Patriots and the reason was that Brady was off. I can also tell you Rodgers missed some throws in the first half he normally does not miss. And in the 2nd half, if Rodgers leads Jordy by six more inches he would have had another TD.

If they played on a neutral site without the cold, Packers could just as easily beat the Patriots again.

Pack has lost three games. At Seattle and Detroit when MM was trying to run to set up the pass. now with the best qb in the game he realizes it is best to pass to set up the run.

Losing at New Orleans was just one of those games. NO was running their track meet and the Packers were staying with them until Rodgers tweaked his Hammy. If they play anywhere but NO, Green Bay blows them out. Credit to New Orleans tho. They played the best game they have played all year.

 

[StarBoyz83]

These 2 would be a good superbowl! For sure could happen this year.

 

[Jenky]

Anybody been following them this year? How did they go from a talented (yet very soft team mentally), to the grittiest team in the NFL able to beat the undisputedly best team (Patriots), handily?

Big mistake letting Jordy Nelson score right before the half. Other than that, it could have gone the other way.

 

[maxdallasfan]

Two dropped TDs and a missed field goal from being a blow out

 

[Joe Realist]

The are the NFC rep in the SB, if they get home field advantage.

 

[Stryker44]

The Giants beat the Pack in GB in the playoffs in 07 and 11...

 

[TellerMorrow34]

No offense but they didn't easily beat the Patriots and the Patriots are not the undisputed best team in the league.

 

[Rogah]

Anybody been following them this year? How did they go from a talented (yet very soft team mentally), to the grittiest team in the NFL able to beat the undisputedly best team (Patriots), handily?

I'm not sure I would say they beat the Patriots "handily". They barely held on to win at home. Not sure that bodes well for a potential neutral-field rematch.

Of course, having said that, if I'm Green Bay I'm a lot more worried about Seattle than the Patriots. Seattle is their nightmare matchup.

 

[Sarge]

Elite QB and a pretty good RB.

Not to mention Randall Cobb and Jordy Nelson.

 

[Sarge]

I'm not sure I would say they beat the Patriots "handily". They barely held on to win at home. Not sure that bodes well for a potential neutral-field rematch.

Of course, having said that, if I'm Green Bay I'm a lot more worried about Seattle than the Patriots. Seattle is their nightmare matchup.

That game wasn't as close as the score. The Packers really were in control the entire game.

 

[Rogah]

That game wasn't as close as the score. The Packers really were in control the entire game.

Bull. The Packers controlled the first half, but not the 2nd. If you make that game 5 minutes longer, the Patriots would have won it. Lambeau is one of the best home field advantages in the NFL. If I'm a Packers fan, I do not look forward to a neutral field game against the same team. Of course, if I'm a Packers fan, I am way more focused on Seattle than a potential Super Bowl opponent.

 

[FloridaRob]

Wrong Rogah, As a Packer fan myself, I can say the only two places that I would be worried about them playing would be Seattle and New Orleans. The Packers could beat anyone at a neutral site. I know that Rodgers was just a bit off last week. Moreso than I normally see him. Give him another four quarters against the Pats and he is liable to do the same damage he did to the Falcons in the playoffs a few years ago. It was a lot closer to a blowout by the Packers than the other way around.

 

[EST_1986]

Not to mention Randall Cobb and Jordy Nelson.

Not to mention two amazing WRs you're right. Nelson is a beast.

 

[Rogah]

Wrong Rogah, As a Packer fan myself, I can say the only two places that I would be worried about them playing would be Seattle and New Orleans. The Packers could beat anyone at a neutral site. I know that Rodgers was just a bit off last week. Moreso than I normally see him. Give him another four quarters against the Pats and he is liable to do the same damage he did to the Falcons in the playoffs a few years ago. It was a lot closer to a blowout by the Packers than the other way around.

You have to make all sorts of if's, but's and conjecture to make your point. I have facts, stats, and things that actually happened to make mine. The reason why Rodgers was "off" is because his receivers were being very well covered by a pretty good secondary.

Packers are the hottest team in football right now, just like the Patriots were in November and the Broncos were in October and the Seahawks were in September. Enjoy it while it lasts.

 

[FloridaRob]

You have to make all sorts of if's, but's and conjecture to make your point. I have facts, stats, and things that actually happened to make mine. The reason why Rodgers was "off" is because his receivers were being very well covered by a pretty good secondary.

Packers are the hottest team in football right now, just like the Patriots were in November and the Broncos were in October and the Seahawks were in September. Enjoy it while it lasts.

I am not discrediting anything the Pats did. I remember passes that if Rodgers was on like he normally is then passes that were overthrown or behind Wrs would have been TDs. No QB is as accurate as Rodgers and his inaccuracy last week had nothing to do with WRs being covered, but everything to do with Rodgers being a little off. On the slant pass Browner barely tipped away Rodgers was behind Jordy by maybe a foot. Rodgers does not miss that throw 9 times out of ten. He missed it last week. Another play the WR had separation in the end zone and Rodgers overthrows him. Can's give you stats on that but anybody that watched the game and knows how accurate Rodgers is, knows that he was not as accurate last week. Neutral site would be just as beneficial to the Packers as any other team.

 

[FloridaRob]

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014...t-quarterback-to-ever-play-american-football/