The Packers

[Rogah]

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.

A neutral site would not be beneficial to the Packers relative to playing at home.

You say Aaron Rodgers was a little off.... well so was Tom Brady. If you change 1 or 2 plays, the Packers win by 14. Well guess what? If I change 1 or 2 plays, then the Patriots win by 10. So like I said..... in order for you to make your point, you have to fall back on what-ifs, conjecture, changing this and that, etc., whereas my point is supported by facts and that which actually happened.

And if I'm a Packers fan after yesterday, I sure as hell ain't thinking about New England. My attention and focus is 100% on the Pacific Northwest because Seattle is starting to look an awful lot like the team that won last year's Super Bowl - and they also happen to be a team that whupped the Packers 8 ways to Sunday to kick the season off way back in September.

 

[Doomsday101]

I would say the Pack right now are the best team in the NFL and odds on favorite to make the SB, however things happen quick in the NFL and in a 1 game playoff system anything can happen.

 

[FloridaRob]

A neutral site would not be beneficial to the Packers relative to playing at home.

You say Aaron Rodgers was a little off.... well so was Tom Brady. If you change 1 or 2 plays, the Packers win by 14. Well guess what? If I change 1 or 2 plays, then the Patriots win by 10. So like I said..... in order for you to make your point, you have to fall back on what-ifs, conjecture, changing this and that, etc., whereas my point is supported by facts and that which actually happened.

And if I'm a Packers fan after yesterday, I sure as hell ain't thinking about New England. My attention and focus is 100% on the Pacific Northwest because Seattle is starting to look an awful lot like the team that won last year's Super Bowl - and they also happen to be a team that whupped the Packers 8 ways to Sunday to kick the season off way back in September.

So a neutral site would not be beneficial to the Packers but would be beneficial to the Pats. Ok got it. You are right. Rodgers was off by six to twelve inches. Brady was off by six to ten yards. But those passes were almost there. As I said earlier, playing Seattle in Seattle would not be beneficial to the Packers. You want them in Lambeau. As far as that first game, they did beat the Packers like a drum that game. But that was September when McCarthy was running his offense off of Lacy. After the Detroit game he went to running the offense off Rodgers. The Packers are a lot better team now than they were in Seattle the first game. I doubt that McCarthy does away from Sherman the whole game like he did the first game. Anyway. still a lot of football left to play. I actually think the Packers will lose one of the next three games and end 12 and 4. Hope I am wrong so they can secure homefield. They will be the Lions the last game of the year tho.

One last thing, where are your stats you keep talking about. You haven't provided anything like that.

 

[Rogah]

So a neutral site would not be beneficial to the Packers but would be beneficial to the Pats. Ok got it. You are right.

What part of "relative to their previous game" do you not understand?

Yes, a neutral site would be better for the Patriots than playing in Lambeau. And when they played at Lambeau, the Packers barely held on to win.

Rodgers was off by six to twelve inches. Brady was off by six to ten yards.

Yup. Uh-huh. Sure, bro. You were measuring every missed pass by each QB. Right-o.

One last thing, where are your stats you keep talking about. You haven't provided anything like that.

Green Bay 26, New England 21. I'll say now what I said to start this whole thing: If I'm the Packers, I am not thumping my chest over barely holding on to win at home because the next time - if these 2 teams meet - it won't be in Lambeau.

Of course, after tonight, if I'm a Packers fan, I am not even thinking about New England. I'm thinking about my piss poor defense.

 

[FloridaRob]

lol-just one of those games. Packers were on their heels on defense after Jones 80 yard catch at the start of the second half. After the past six games or so I would say that is not the norm for the way the Packers play defense. But we will see going forward.

And again, Packers can beat any team on a neutral field. Lambeau is great but don't act like they cant win away from Lambeau either.

An no i did not chart every pass. But I did watch every pass and have seen every pass Rodgers has ever thrown. He was off where he is not usually. Missed Jordy by a foot he does not miss on. Missed Cobb on a TD pass and a long where he had separation. Pats were playing a great defense when Adams clunked a TD pass off his hands. Again, it was closer to a blowout for the Packers than the other way around. But spin it any way you want. YOu can have the last word.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I never thought of them as a mentally soft team. They needed to keep Rodgers healthy and get better in pass defense. They moved Matthews to ILB and had some better play from their D-Line. Cobb and their TE stepped up on offense and the O-Line has played better.

But in the end, it's really about the QB play. Take Brady out of New England and it changes the Patriots dramatically. Manning got hurt in Indianapolis and they went from a team that won double digits every season to going 2-14. Belichick was considered a 'great coordinator, lousy head coach' and didn't prove that wrong his first 18 games in New England (5-13) until Bledsoe got hurt on a freakish play.

What this does go to show you is that you can find great QB's and not have to get them in the top-5 of the draft. Getting a QB like Brady in the 6th round isn't likely to ever happen again. However, Rodgers was acquired with the 24th pick and was selected well behind Alex Smith. There was also talk about how since Rodgers was a Jeff Tedford QB, he couldn't succeed in the NFL.

Instead, the Packers drafted Rodgers and gave him time to sit and learn the game and sharpen his mechanics. Then when it was time to let Favre go, Rodgers stepped in and they never missed a beat...in fact, I think they are far better with Rodgers than Favre.

That's the way you do it. Hopefully Jerry can look at the Packers and tell himself that if there's a good QB there, draft him. In the long run it will do this franchise far more good than trying to get a DE that we hope can be a good addition to the defense.






YR

 

[CowboyChris]

As a Cowboy fan I would rather play Seattle in the playoffs than GB, I'm not buying all this hype that Seattle is now the best team in the NFL again... particulary in the NFC, and for the record I think right now GB beats Seattle if the playoffs started today.

 

[Rogah]

lol-just one of those games. Packers were on their heels on defense after Jones 80 yard catch at the start of the second half. After the past six games or so I would say that is not the norm for the way the Packers play defense. But we will see going forward.

And again, Packers can beat any team on a neutral field. Lambeau is great but don't act like they cant win away from Lambeau either.

They are 3-3 away from Lambeau, which includes barely beating the Vikings, barely beating the Dolphins, and getting whupped by Seattle and New Orleans.

They are 7-0 at home, scoring 41 points per game. They are 3-3 on the road, scoring 22.5 points per game. But yeah, you're right... there's no home field advantage for the Packers. They're the same team no matter where they play.

They've played 4 of their last 5 at home. By an amazing coincidence, they're the hottest team in football. In October, when the Broncos were the hottest team in football, I pointed out that they started their season with 5 of 7 at home so let's see what happens once they're on the road a little. Sure enough, they dropped 2 of their next 3.

Again, it was closer to a blowout for the Packers than the other way around. But spin it any way you want. YOu can have the last word.

I don't have to spin, I have facts and stats on my side. You have conjecture, what-ifs, theory, guesswork and maybe's.

 

[Rogah]

They are 7-0 at home, scoring 41 points per game. They are 3-3 on the road, scoring 22.5 points per game. But yeah, you're right... there's no home field advantage for the Packers. They're the same team no matter where they play.

They've played 4 of their last 5 at home. By an amazing coincidence, they're the hottest team in football. In October, when the Broncos were the hottest team in football, I pointed out that they started their season with 5 of 7 at home so let's see what happens once they're on the road a little. Sure enough, they dropped 2 of their next 3.

You know I hate to say I told you so but uh.... aw who am I kidding? I love saying I told you so!!!

Updated figures:
GB at home: 7-0 scoring 41 points per game
GB on road: 3-4, scoring 21 points per game

But yeah.... Lambeau isn't a home field advantage.... they're just as good on the road.....

 

[Idgit]

lol-just one of those games. Packers were on their heels on defense after Jones 80 yard catch at the start of the second half. After the past six games or so I would say that is not the norm for the way the Packers play defense. But we will see going forward.

And again, Packers can beat any team on a neutral field. Lambeau is great but don't act like they cant win away from Lambeau either.

An no i did not chart every pass. But I did watch every pass and have seen every pass Rodgers has ever thrown. He was off where he is not usually. Missed Jordy by a foot he does not miss on. Missed Cobb on a TD pass and a long where he had separation. Pats were playing a great defense when Adams clunked a TD pass off his hands. Again, it was closer to a blowout for the Packers than the other way around. But spin it any way you want. YOu can have the last word.

Not really 'just one of those games.' They just got beat by a team that wasn't a good matchup for them. They blew some huge opportunities, to be sure, but there's a pattern out there for teams that matchup with GB. The Pack is just like any other team out there in that regard. And now they probably need to beat DET in week 17 to accomplish what they want to accomplish. Welcome to today's NFL.

And I think I'm taking NE or SEA over the Pack on a neutral field. Maybe even the Cowboys, depending upon how we show this afternoon.

 

[FloridaRob]

I said earlier in this thread the Packers would lose on of the next three games before the Atlanta game. They lost. They played Monday night and then had to travel against a very good defensive game. Tough road for any team and not just the Packers. Rodgers played the worse game of his career. Feel sorry for Tampa Bay next week. Not really but Packers win the next two to take the North.

And as I said earlier, the only places I would be reluctant for the Packers to play are Seattle and New Orleans. Neutral field? Any team, any where....