Skip to main content

Tagged With "Week 5"

Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Pikes Peak ·
Preposterous.....with or without Dick they lose by 5.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

MichiganPacker ·
If you replace RichRod with a guy that could outrun the average NFL DL (or block better than a scatback), we win by 10.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Music City ·
Ok- I agree with that. When a team isn't ready to play, it's on the coaches. I have gone back and forth on this subject- if McCarthy's time has come. I guess I just don't understand why a guy who used to be so ahead of the game, so innovative, and right there with the best coaches in the game suddenly loses it. Last year the play-calling debacle it was "They miss Jordy"... this year not much has changed. And I go back to that Bleacher Report article- is Rodgers seeing ghosts? Today's game...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

DH13 ·
+HHCD finally playing like a playmaker +Ryan showing glimpses of a good ILB +Montgomery showing what an x factor can do for an offense +Adams showing progress - losing to a 3-5 Colts team that deserves to be 3-5. That's a bad omen. Game wasn't as close as score. -middle of the D again proving fatal -OL. Our OL was getting a lot of praise through 5 or 6 weeks because D's were rushing 2 or 3. Now that they're sending more, we see that really are average. -MM. Glimpses of creativity to bust out...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Pikes Peak ·
From Peter King today..... Stat of the Week In their past 20 games, Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers are: a. 9-11. b. 4-5 at Lambeau Field. c. Two wins worse than the Oakland Raiders. d. Three wins worse than the Detroit Lions. e. Owners of the same number of 300-yard passing games (three) as Cleveland.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Grave Digger ·
Saying McCarthy should be fired is easy. Offering a real solution is the difficult part. Who do you replace McCarthy with is a legit question? Go to perennially underachieving HC lIke Lovie Smith? Bring in an up and comer with no HC experience like Darrell Bevell? Or steal from the Belichick tree with Matt Patricia or retread Josh McDaniel? Yeah it's been 6 years since McCarthy won a SB, Bill Cowher went a decade after losing a SB before he even went to another. He kept his team in the hunt...
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Pakrz ·
Disagree.
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

Timpranillo ·
Re: Positives and negatives
Reply

Re: Positives and negatives

slowmo ·
Why, thank you
Reply

Re: Playoffs

H5 ·
Need MICH to win last 2 then lose to WI in the title game. IMO, that is what the Badgers need for a shot into the playoffs. Also having Louisville drop another would be great just to be sure. My CFP projection after yesterday 1 - Alabama 2- Mich 3 - Ohio St 4 - Louisville 5 - Wisconsin 6 - Washington 7 - Clemson Wash and Clem were losses at home. Clemson to an unranked Pitt.
Reply

Re: Playoffs

The Heckler ·
This weeks rankings just came out: 1. Bama 2. O$U 3. Michigan 4. Clemson 5 Washington 6. Bucky 7. PSU 8 Oklahoma 9. Colorado 10. Oklahoma St. So it kind of shakes out like this I guess. OSU or Michigan will have 2 losses after their game but will the committee drop down either of them if the game is close? I kind of wonder if they will? Bama has Auburn but it is at Bama so I don't expect an upset Clemson has a so so South Carolina team Washington has the apple cup with Wash St. If Bucky...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Cavetoad ·
But you see, that's the thing. No, our offense is probably not in the top 30 offenses. Who the **** cares?!?!? Our TEAM is in the top 5 or whatnot. The TEAM wins, the D makes plays, the O makes plays. It's TEAM!
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Slobknocker ·
Bucky will need Washington to lose, to get into the top 4. I would bet that Wisconsin is still ranked #6 on Tuesday night. Mich #5, and Washington #4
Reply

Re: Playoffs

The Heckler ·
This is what kind of gets me. There is now a mentality in things I have been hearing and reading that now apparently they also want a "better game". So is it the whole body of work or is it who would give a better game? It seems to shift around constantly if they are talking about a blue blood program. And no one will say it but I guarantee you that they want as many blue bloods in the playoff as they possibly can and will use any excuse in the book to make it happen. Think about if for a...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

The Heckler ·
I completely agree that they should be in for winning the best conference in the country. But, we better brace ourselves for not getting in and the committee picking O$U instead. We are going to see what the committee values more head to head matchup, conference titles, or the "eye test". They are going to pick O$U because they can use the excuse that they beat UW and have a good resume. Also, I just cant see a scenario that they drop Ohio St. 3 spots to #5 to leave them out. With all that...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Grave Digger ·
I think the committee factors in multiple criteria, but at the end of the day they pick who they believe are the best 4 teams in the country. I agree that the B1G winner SHOULD go, along with the SEC and PAC12 winners as those teams have gone through a gauntlet of inter-conference play AND won a championship outright. The Big 12 needs a championship game to legitimize their champion. If you want to compare quality wins: -Michigan has the best argument with 4 wins vs. Top 25 teams with 3 of...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

The Heckler ·
I usually don't watch all of ESPN's playoff coverage but I did last night. They had a show before the actual rankings coming out with some random ESPN tools (redundant I know) talking about the playoffs. And I am starting to wonder what their criteria is for putting teams in. One of the things they discussed was if they should put teams in there if they don't think they match up well. And I will give you ONE guess which team they were showing on the screen when they said that. Yep Wisconsin.
Reply

Re: Playoffs

FreeSafety ·
8 team playoff. 5 Power 5 conference champs plus 3 at large teams. That way winning your conference means something and WIS/PS, OSU and MI all get in. Oklahoma gets in.
Reply

Re: Playoffs

MichiganPacker ·
A 12 team tournament would be the way to go to make the conference championships mean something, but the problem is there are 5 Power conferences instead of 4. You could award the top 4 rated POwer Conference champions an automatic bye, and then have the 5th go into an 8 team First Round playoff to see which four teams play the conference champs. I agree that this year will expose the fact that the conference championship is not that important. It's very likely that Penn State/Bucky winner...
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Grave Digger ·
I agree with you about the conference consolidation, but I think they need to adopt the NFL playoff system and go to a 6 team playoff. 4 conference winners, 2 wildcard teams. 1 and 2 get a BYE, 3 plays 6, 4 plays 5. That way you're not penalizing teams for getting bumped out of a major conference, and good teams who lose competitive divisions still have a shot.
Reply

Re: Playoffs

Grave Digger ·
#1 and #2 get the byes, that seems pretty simple. Teams who win their conference SHOULD be ranked in the top 5, it's not easy to win a gauntlet of interconference play, even the PAC12.
Reply

Re: Playoffs

MichiganPacker ·
Announcers mentioned Alabama has 6 first round draft picks playing that will be in the NFL next year. I think the way to beat them is the same way you beat Bucky (although much tougher obviously). Don't give up defensive or special teams touchdowns and make the QB beat you passing from the pocket. The RBs don't get hit on about half the carries until 5-10 yards downfield.
Reply

Re: Dos A Cero

Chongo ·
Klinsy and his "jeenyus" 3-5-2 yielded that goal USA should be up in this game
Reply

Re: Dos A Cero

Chongo ·
3-5-2 fukkin kraut slurping motherfukker! (It's OK my mom is German, I can drop the K-word)
Reply

Re: Since No One Else Has The Stomach For It....Pos/Neg

Timmy! ·
+ Individual performances by Adams and Cobb. Starks did reasonably well. Spriggs did pretty good for coming in cold. He's still got work to do, though. Hell, I'm even going to give Barclay a '+'. At least he wasn't a turnstile today! - Lost to a 4-5 team, after losing to a 3-5 team the week before. No pass rush. None. No defense. None. 7-0 before folks have found their seats, 21-0 at the end of the 1st qtr, and 5 TDs by halftime is NOT good football. Yeah, being fairly decimated by injury is...
Reply

Re: Since No One Else Has The Stomach For It....Pos/Neg

packerboi ·
This team could quite easily limp home at 4-7 and finish 6-10 or even 5-11. That's not being an alarmist, IMHO that's just the reality of this team.
Reply

Re: Since No One Else Has The Stomach For It....Pos/Neg

ChilliJon ·
No idea if he'd have kept it up as the weight started creeping. But he was running hard before the injury and averaging over 5 yards per carry. Don't agree with the comments that Eddie was a disappointment this year. He wasn't. He just got injured.
Reply

Re: Since No One Else Has The Stomach For It....Pos/Neg

FLPACKER ·
Eddie has amazing feet for a guy his size, which makes him a good RB, however there is just no way that he is as good at 260 as he is at 230. Look at Elliot from Dallas. Picture him with 30 pounds of added fat on him, do you think he'd be as good as he is now?
Reply

Re: 2 years ago...

Grave Digger ·
Passing 2014 Player Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD TD% Int Lng Y/A Y/C Y/G Rate Sk% Aaron Rodgers 341 520 65.6 4381 38 7.3 5 80 8.4 12.8 273.8 112.2 5.1 2016 Player Cmp Att Cmp% Yds TD TD% Int Lng Y/A Y/C Y/G Rate Sk% Aaron Rodgers 233 369 63.1 2410 22 6.0 7 58 6.5 10.3 267.8 93.9 5.6 Not a huge dropoff, TD% is lower and Yards/Attempt is lower. INTs are up, telling me he's forcing the ball more or someone else is fukking up. There have been a couple tipped passes that have been picked which aren'this...
Reply

Re: 2 years ago...

Satori ·
The song remains the same: The Packers attempt more runs than the NFL average The Packers running percentage is higher than the NFL average I'm certain we can find any number of specific examples where we would have done things differently, but we don't have all the info needed to make that decision. In the Beefalo game you cited, the Packers ran the ball 24 times for 158 yards and a TD, but at that point they were down 19-10 with less than 5 minutes remaining and needed to score twice, quickly.
Reply

Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?

fightphoe93 ·
The Ugly: The NFC North overall. The Vikings won today, but wow, with that offensive line, I don't know if they have more than a couple more wins in them it is that bad. The Lions are the Lions and I think at best that is a 9-7 team, maybe an 8-8 team. One thing that does help both teams... one of them will automatically be 7-4 after Thanksgiving since they play eachother. Having 7 wins going into December might be enough for the winner of that Vikings/Lions game to barely limp to a division...
Reply

Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?

packerboi ·
The Good? The Packers may very well be drafting in the top 5-7 in 2017 after going 4-12 or 5-11. The Ugly? After choosing that high draft choice, it's equally likely it'll be Ted Thompson, Mike McCarthy and Dom Capers high fiving one another after they make the pick.
Reply

Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?

MichiganPacker ·
The Good. 1. Cook showed how much the offense can benefit when you have a TE that is a receiving threat. They really haven't had that since Finley. 2. Rodgers missed a few, but it was clear that Cousins was also having problems with balls thrown in the flat because of the wind. A couple of those moved several feet when thrown in that direction. Other than that, Rodgers played pretty well. The OL can't run block and can't really protect, so Rodgers is what's keeping them somewhat respectable.
Reply

Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?

MichiganPacker ·
The problem is that they are more than 1 player away from being a top flight contender again. They are about 4 players away and that's if those players are Ezekiel Elliott, Richard Sherman, Joe Thomas, and a healthy JJ Watt.
Reply

Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?

packerboi ·
Agree, this team is far from one player away. Which is why it continues to be so damn frustrating Ted is so obsessed with the draft and completing his roster with UDFA's and almost never considers free agency. The one thing we know about Ted's "tree" of exec's that have since left him...Reggie McKenzie, John Dorsey, and Schneider is that these guys will use and sign veteran free agents to fill their rosters. Ted simply refuses to. And considering he's missed on key players in his last 3...
Reply

Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?

MichiganPacker ·
Only if you hit about 3 home runs in a row. They got a HOF QB with the 23rd pick, a guy who played at a HOF level for several years with the 26th pick (CM3), and a HOF DB who came to Green Bay on a discount because everyone else thought he was washed up (Woodson). That's 3 HOF-level players at 3 of the 4 most important positions (QB, edge rusher, CB) without having a top 5 pick. That coupled with having 2 of your other top 3 CBs being UDFA that played like Pro Bowlers on small contracts...
Reply

Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?

The Heckler ·
I do think this division could be won at 9-7 or even 8-8. The Vikings are floundering a bit and their OL is a disaster and the Lions? well you just never know they are the Lions. I for one never ever blame injuries but this team is just absolutely devastated right now. On offense Cook has missed almost the whole year, the OL is banged up, they had to start a WR at RB, Phat Eddie has been gone for what 4-5 weeks now? Shields has missed the whole season, Starks missed quite a few games, Jordy...
Reply

Re: The Ugly, The Bad ...and the Good?

Grave Digger ·
Yeah I actually have very few complaints with the OL. The complaint is actually with Campen. Why the F has Spriggs not been playing Guard in place of Lang from the moment he was injured? Sure he doesn't fit the "prototype" Guard, he's tall and lean, but he was clearly better than Barclay from the his first snap at RG. He moved better, he was smarter, quicker, and held up better against the bull rush. I don't have to see practice to know who is the better OL. Put your best 5 out their dummy.
Reply

Re: I am starting to get excited about our top 10 draft pick next spring

Ghost of Lambeau ·
The Packer 2016 Draft Shopping List: 1) A remake of the TE position. (3 picks) 2) Durable RBs who can make people miss. (2 picks) 3) A WR that combines both speed and quickness (1 pick) 4) Another OL who can replace Barclay (1 pick) 5) A couple CBs who combine speed with size and don't get injured every 4.2368 tackles. (2 picks) 6) A guy whose every dream is about decking every NFL QB on game day - and has the size, speed, talent, and will to make it happen. (1 pick) That is 10 draft picks.
Reply

Re: I am starting to get excited about our top 10 draft pick next spring

MichiganPacker ·
I hate to say it, but they have to draft BPA. This team needs a significant talent infusion, especially on the defensive side of the ball, and it's not going to be a one year process. It's likely the last year for Shields (10 million), Peppers (9 million), Lacy (1 million), Starks (3 million), Datone Jones (million) and Lang (6 million) and they'll have to make big money decisions about Perry (5 million) and Cook (3 million). That's 39 million of cap money, most of which will become...
Reply

Re: I am starting to get excited about our top 10 draft pick next spring

PackerPatrick ·
THIS (Best post of the week)
Reply

Re: I am starting to get excited about our top 10 draft pick next spring

Grave Digger ·
There are actually a few players who need to have their 2017 cap hit adjusted based on their production...Matthews will hit us for 15.2 million, Cobb for 12.75, Shields for 12.125, and Nelson for 11.55. All should be candidates for restructure as that is an absurd list of cap hits for the production. -Clay's glorious return to OLB has him on-track for a dominating 25 tackles and 5 sacks. Do we want to be on the hook for 15 mil this time if his hamstring flares up again for weeks at a time.
Reply

Re: Viking Clap vs Our Man Dak game thread

catts ·
Looks like they will be 7-5 and the Cowboys will fall to 10-2.
Reply

Re: Viking Clap vs Our Man Dak game thread

ChilliJon ·
"Looks like they will be 7-5 and the Cowboys will fall to 10-2" This is Skip Bayless spicy.
Reply

Re: Viking Clap vs Our Man Dak game thread

catts ·
On the other hand maybe the Vikettes will be 6-6 and my Cows will be 11-1. Yep, I like that better.
Reply

Re: Viking Clap vs Our Man Dak game thread

ChilliJon ·
While Treadwell continues to get nothing accomplished Jason Spriggs is learning how to play guard. Might have been a good selection for Minny Rick has free wheeled his way to 9 first round picks over the last 5 years. His team sucks. He has no first rounder next year. I hope Rick gets a nice extension. Its also important to note the Vikings have never won a Super Bowl.
Reply

Re: Rodger wants Thursday Night Playoffs

ChilliJon ·
This is a review in terrible coaching. Del Rio style. Oakland is down 8 with 2:40 left in the 4th facing 2nd and 10 on the KC 23 with two time outs remaining. Oakland runs for 9 yards setting up 3rd and 1 with 2:28 left and the clock running. There are only two options in play here. You run the ball to pick up the 1st down before the two minute warning or you let the clock run down to the two minute warning and then run the ball to pick up the first down. Again. Those are the options. Those...
Reply

Re: Rodger wants Thursday Night Playoffs

IL_Pack_Fan ·
In college, Tyreek Hill's pregnant girlfriend confronted him about rumors he'd been hitting on underaged girls, so he choked her and punched her in the stomach. I would take an eternity of 5-11 over ever having to justify cheering for that.
Reply

Re: Rodger wants Thursday Night Playoffs

MichiganPacker ·
I agree with you, but we have Letroy Guion. http://archive.jsonline.com/sp...657z1-336695811.html
Reply

Re: 2016 (Team 96) WK14 Seahags @ GB GDT

Pack-Man ·
Missed 5 minutes and 32 seconds of the first quarter.
 
×
×
×
×