Quotes SI
Frauds?
Discuss.
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
No, simply because of the HCs. (Didn't read the article)
No. Considering the extent of the injuries they've sustained this year I'd say they've overachieved.
You hear me talking Mike and Aaron? Prove me wrong.
How about a nut shot instead you self important chimpanzee. Way to "stir the pot" half ass.
Nagler is a Betard clone. Post something that can't be picked apart in two seconds.
How about a nut shot instead you self important chimpanzee. Way to "stir the pot" half ass.
Nagler is a Betard clone. Post something that can't be picked apart in two seconds.
Are the Packers like the 2005 Steelers? http://packersnews.greenbaypre...-Steelers-gives-hope
discuss
discuss
quote:Originally posted by Henry:
You hear me talking Mike and Aaron? Prove me wrong.
How about a nut shot instead you self important chimpanzee. Way to "stir the pot" half ass.
Nagler is a Betard clone. Post something that can't be picked apart in two seconds.
site name needs to be changed to droolerstv
SCORE SOME POINTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'll defend CTV. I like most of their stuff, and as a blog they're supposed to inject some more personal opinion. They can stir the pot from time to time, but they get called out. And not just by fans:
quote:AaronRodgers12:
@Aaron_Nagler interesting basing an entire article on one play however poor that play may have been
10:16 AM Jul 28th, 2010 via Twitterrific in reply to Aaron_Nagler
@Aaron_Nagler as do I. I'm my biggest critic n that play n some others def sucked. But I think ur a better writer than that
10:27 AM Jul 28th, 2010 via Twitterrific in reply to Aaron_Nagler
Is that really A Rodgers Twitter?
I'll answer this question on Sunday evening.
I'll answer this question on Sunday evening.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:
You hear me talking Mike and Aaron? Prove me wrong.
How about a nut shot instead you self important chimpanzee. Way to "stir the pot" half ass.
Nagler is a Betard clone. Post something that can't be picked apart in two seconds.
Didn't realize the point of blogging was to "Post something that can't be picked apart in two seconds". Just trying to start some conversation.
That said, while I think Byrne is talking just about the 2010 season, I tend to feel this way about McCarthy's Packers in general. They are great at putting up lots of numbers. Not so great at winning when it matters. Hope I'm proven wrong over the long haul, starting this Sunday in Philadelphia.
quote:Originally posted by IL_Pack_Fan:
I'll defend CTV. I like most of their stuff, and as a blog they're supposed to inject some more personal opinion. They can stir the pot from time to time, but they get called out. And not just by fans:
quote:AaronRodgers12:
@Aaron_Nagler interesting basing an entire article on one play however poor that play may have been
10:16 AM Jul 28th, 2010 via Twitterrific in reply to Aaron_Nagler
@Aaron_Nagler as do I. I'm my biggest critic n that play n some others def sucked. But I think ur a better writer than that
10:27 AM Jul 28th, 2010 via Twitterrific in reply to Aaron_Nagler
Thanks man. And yes, the back and forth with Rodgers was fun.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01...eagles.html?_r=2&hpw
"At halftime, the Eagles led by 10-6 after Hornung botched a short field goal. It was a costly miss for a player who ran, passed and kicked for a league scoring record that season. Another Green Bay drive failed on fourth-and-short early in the third quarter. All told, the Packers reached the Eagles’ 5-, 13-, 8- and 7-yard lines, but mustered only 6 points on those possessions.
"At halftime, the Eagles led by 10-6 after Hornung botched a short field goal. It was a costly miss for a player who ran, passed and kicked for a league scoring record that season. Another Green Bay drive failed on fourth-and-short early in the third quarter. All told, the Packers reached the Eagles’ 5-, 13-, 8- and 7-yard lines, but mustered only 6 points on those possessions.
While McCarthy doesn't get a pass for his entire body of work, I do think he gets a pass for the 2010 season due to the injuries. If anything, McCarthy's coaching staff showed an amazing ability to develop players for starting duty in a small amount of time.
I heard this morning that Green Bay has not even trailed by more than 7 points in a game all year. I'd say GB could EASILY be 13-3 or better if not for early season penalties and ST's.
Those have been playing better the second half. There's no comparison between SD IMO.
Those have been playing better the second half. There's no comparison between SD IMO.
quote:Originally posted by Satori:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01...eagles.html?_r=2&hpw
"At halftime, the Eagles led by 10-6 after Hornung botched a short field goal. It was a costly miss for a player who ran, passed and kicked for a league scoring record that season. Another Green Bay drive failed on fourth-and-short early in the third quarter. All told, the Packers reached the Eagles’ 5-, 13-, 8- and 7-yard lines, but mustered only 6 points on those possessions.
So you're telling me McCarthy is on the cusp of greatness? I'll take that.
quote:Originally posted by Aaronstory:
That said, while I think Byrne is talking just about the 2010 season, I tend to feel this way about McCarthy's Packers in general. They are great at putting up lots of numbers. Not so great at winning when it matters. Hope I'm proven wrong over the long haul, starting this Sunday in Philadelphia.
They had their playoff backs against the wall and HAD to win back to back games against the Giants and the Bears. Darn shame those weren't games that mattered
If the Pack had been say 95% - 100% healthy and played like they did this year, I might agree with the underachieving label.
But come on, this team suffered the types of injuries that usually turns teams into what the Cowboys and Vikings turned into this year... losers. And at 10-6 and in the playoffs, that is really impressive to make that happen after what this team went through.
But come on, this team suffered the types of injuries that usually turns teams into what the Cowboys and Vikings turned into this year... losers. And at 10-6 and in the playoffs, that is really impressive to make that happen after what this team went through.
If wins and losses is all that matters, the article has merit. The merit only has basis if the team's quality level is well represented by the stats.
To summarize, give the team huge kudos for somehow accomplishing those stats, playing at that level and in spite of the injuries.
But, don't turn a blind eye to its propensity to lose close games, which is why they are 10-6 with those lofty stats. The Packers have a tendency to lose close games.
To summarize, give the team huge kudos for somehow accomplishing those stats, playing at that level and in spite of the injuries.
But, don't turn a blind eye to its propensity to lose close games, which is why they are 10-6 with those lofty stats. The Packers have a tendency to lose close games.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
The Packers have a tendency to lose close games.
Good point. Haven't seen this discussed.
quote:Originally posted by Satori:quote:Originally posted by Aaronstory:
That said, while I think Byrne is talking just about the 2010 season, I tend to feel this way about McCarthy's Packers in general. They are great at putting up lots of numbers. Not so great at winning when it matters. Hope I'm proven wrong over the long haul, starting this Sunday in Philadelphia.
They had their playoff backs against the wall and HAD to win back to back games against the Giants and the Bears. Darn shame those weren't games that mattered
Think I was pretty clear in the post that I was talking about the offense - which certainly showed up against the Giants. Not so much against the Bears.
quote:Originally posted by Aaronstory:quote:Originally posted by Henry:
You hear me talking Mike and Aaron? Prove me wrong.
How about a nut shot instead you self important chimpanzee. Way to "stir the pot" half ass.
Nagler is a Betard clone. Post something that can't be picked apart in two seconds.
Didn't realize the point of blogging was to "Post something that can't be picked apart in two seconds". Just trying to start some conversation.
That said, while I think Byrne is talking just about the 2010 season, I tend to feel this way about McCarthy's Packers in general. They are great at putting up lots of numbers. Not so great at winning when it matters. Hope I'm proven wrong over the long haul, starting this Sunday in Philadelphia.
*Ahem* check, check, check. "I am a better professional QB than Tom Brady".
I'm now a blogger. Prove me wrong.
I like CHFF but not considering the injury count is stupid when making comparisons to the Chargers. They had the full complement of superstar RB and Pro bowl QB and seasoned coaching staff. You can definitely allude to certain concerns, like offensive coaching staff, but to leave out facts for some "prove me wrong" pot stirring is complete idiocy.
Go play now.
The Packers under Thompson and McCarthy have a tendency to win more than they lose.
They alos have a tendency to win when they score more points.
They alos have a tendency to win when they score more points.
quote:Originally posted by Aaronstory:
I was talking about the offense - which certainly showed up against the Giants. Not so much against the Bears.
The Bears defense had nothing to do with this.
Rarely go to that website unless someone posts a link to it... After the click, I remember that it's packerchatteresque and abruptly move on.
If a team, in spite of its injuries, has the stats the Packers do, I don't think it loses close games at a higher ratio than games that are not close because of those injuries.
If that is true, you can laud the Packers for the injury part, but critique them for the close games part.
It seems to me, the Packers have to be the deepest team in the league and so TT deserves GM of the year, best GM in the league, barring none. He made the depth.
If that is true, you can laud the Packers for the injury part, but critique them for the close games part.
It seems to me, the Packers have to be the deepest team in the league and so TT deserves GM of the year, best GM in the league, barring none. He made the depth.
quote:Originally posted by Hungry5:quote:Originally posted by Aaronstory:
I was talking about the offense - which certainly showed up against the Giants. Not so much against the Bears.
The Bears defense had nothing to do with this.
Sir, you are a ninny pants. Prove me wrong.
McCarthy has a better winning percentage than Lovie Smith. Yet, we get to hear how great he is.
Personally I'm just enjoying the ride Aaron when you consider the ridiculous amount of starts (207) this roster has missed and yet here we are in the playoffs.
The Bears don't get enough credit for their defense and the Packers are in a similar boat with theirs. They run an excellent cover 2 scheme that Green Bay would pick apart if a player named JerMichael Finley was on that roster last Sunday.
He is the antidote to that scheme and IMO is a big reason GB didn't put up more points. I don't think it's a matter of the offense "not showing" up-unless you want to count dropped passes which is completely on the player-not the coaches. They've tought them the routes and schemes to run. They can't go out and catch the passes as well.
Against an Eagles team missing their best defensive player (arguably) in Bradley who's likely not to play and a pass D who is 31st in the NFL against the pass I expect the Packers offense to look like the one who faced the Giants. Not saying they'll rack up 45 points but this should be an easier D to take on.
Biggest thing GB needs to do is start fast. Way too many slow starts of late.
The Bears don't get enough credit for their defense and the Packers are in a similar boat with theirs. They run an excellent cover 2 scheme that Green Bay would pick apart if a player named JerMichael Finley was on that roster last Sunday.
He is the antidote to that scheme and IMO is a big reason GB didn't put up more points. I don't think it's a matter of the offense "not showing" up-unless you want to count dropped passes which is completely on the player-not the coaches. They've tought them the routes and schemes to run. They can't go out and catch the passes as well.
Against an Eagles team missing their best defensive player (arguably) in Bradley who's likely not to play and a pass D who is 31st in the NFL against the pass I expect the Packers offense to look like the one who faced the Giants. Not saying they'll rack up 45 points but this should be an easier D to take on.
Biggest thing GB needs to do is start fast. Way too many slow starts of late.
quote:Originally posted by Hungry5:quote:Originally posted by Aaronstory:
I was talking about the offense - which certainly showed up against the Giants. Not so much against the Bears.
The Bears defense had nothing to do with this.
Here are what all teams (except the Packers) scored against the Bears this season.
Lions – 14
Cowboys – 20
Giants – 17
Panthers – 6
Seahawks – 20
Redskins – 17
Bills – 19
Vikings – 13
Dolphins – 0
Eagles – 26
Lions – 20
Patriots – 36
Vikings – 14
Jets - 34
So the Patriots can score 36. The Jets can score 34. The hapless Lions can score 14 and 20. Seahags 20. Redskins 17. The mighty Bills 19 (nearly doubling the Packer's total).
And the Bears defense had something to do with it. Maybe so, but it seems offenses far less potent than the Packer's offense, had something to do with scoring more than 10 points, a point total amassed by a Packer team at home in a must win game.
San Diego is a good comparison in that they seem pretty good on offense and defense, but the special teams are bad enough to lose games all by themselves.
It's hard to pinpoint what the problem is with all the close losses, but I don't think it's down to the injuries. Yes, we'd almost certainly do better with Finley and Grant. The lack of a good running game obviously hurts in late game situations when you're trying to run out the clock.
I've complained about it plenty already, but Mike McCarthy doesn't seem to squeeze as much out of the clock as I think he could, whether it's the end of the first half, or the end of the game.
There are some crappy individual plays to squander games as well, and maybe some uhhh... curious.. officiating that didn't necessarily help.
But I do agree with the fundamental point that this is a team that should be sitting on a bye, and quite possibly homefield advantage.
Then again it's very possible that I'm just overestimating them... I mean, the Bears game, while a great win... it does make me wonder a bit. I still don't think the Bears are very good, and I was hoping to see the Packers just obliterate them at home and they really didn't That game was a struggle till the very end.
Maybe we're not that good? I don't know. I still feel like the Packers are a dangerous team in the playoffs.
It's hard to pinpoint what the problem is with all the close losses, but I don't think it's down to the injuries. Yes, we'd almost certainly do better with Finley and Grant. The lack of a good running game obviously hurts in late game situations when you're trying to run out the clock.
I've complained about it plenty already, but Mike McCarthy doesn't seem to squeeze as much out of the clock as I think he could, whether it's the end of the first half, or the end of the game.
There are some crappy individual plays to squander games as well, and maybe some uhhh... curious.. officiating that didn't necessarily help.
But I do agree with the fundamental point that this is a team that should be sitting on a bye, and quite possibly homefield advantage.
Then again it's very possible that I'm just overestimating them... I mean, the Bears game, while a great win... it does make me wonder a bit. I still don't think the Bears are very good, and I was hoping to see the Packers just obliterate them at home and they really didn't That game was a struggle till the very end.
Maybe we're not that good? I don't know. I still feel like the Packers are a dangerous team in the playoffs.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:quote:Originally posted by Aaronstory:quote:Originally posted by Henry:
You hear me talking Mike and Aaron? Prove me wrong.
How about a nut shot instead you self important chimpanzee. Way to "stir the pot" half ass.
Nagler is a Betard clone. Post something that can't be picked apart in two seconds.
Didn't realize the point of blogging was to "Post something that can't be picked apart in two seconds". Just trying to start some conversation.
That said, while I think Byrne is talking just about the 2010 season, I tend to feel this way about McCarthy's Packers in general. They are great at putting up lots of numbers. Not so great at winning when it matters. Hope I'm proven wrong over the long haul, starting this Sunday in Philadelphia.
*Ahem* check, check, check. "I am a better professional QB than Tom Brady".
I'm now a blogger. Prove me wrong.
I like CHFF but not considering the injury count is stupid when making comparisons to the Chargers. They had the full complement of superstar RB and Pro bowl QB and seasoned coaching staff. You can definitely allude to certain concerns, like offensive coaching staff, but to leave out facts for some "prove me wrong" pot stirring is complete idiocy.
Go play now.
Why are you so abrasive? What have I done to piss you off?
Yes, everything else is static throughout the season Phadreus therefore point totals are the only solid measure of performance. Not even W-L records matter with that fat, tinder dry strawman you just slapped up.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
So the Patriots can score 36. The Jets can score 34. The hapless Lions can score 14 and 20. Seahags 20. Redskins 17. The mighty Bills 19 (nearly doubling the Packer's total).
And the Bears defense had something to do with it. Maybe so, but it seems offenses far less potent than the Packer's offense, had something to do with scoring more than 10 points, a point total amassed by a Packer team at home in a must win game.
And you don't take into consideration the Bears treat the Packers just a tad differently then a team like the Bills?
When the mission statement of the Bears HC above and beyond anything else is to beat the Packers? Not to mention the drive they had to knock their most hated rival out of the playoffs?
BTW I love people who are still clasifying the Lions as "hapless". A team who won 4 straight including beating 2 10 win teams and without their starting QB.
Newsflash. This ain't Millens Lions anymore.
quote:Originally posted by Hungry5:quote:Originally posted by Aaronstory:
I was talking about the offense - which certainly showed up against the Giants. Not so much against the Bears.
The Bears defense had nothing to do with this.
Neither did dropped passes or fumbles or overthrown passes or not being able to run the ball or...
quote:Originally posted by Aaronstory:
Why are you so abrasive?
Steel wool manpons
quote:What have I done to piss you off?
Not a fan of deliberate dumb. Prove me wrong.
The Bears treating the Packers differently ought to be offset by the Packers treating the Bears differently. Also, the drive the Bears had to knock the Packers out of the playoffs ought to be offset by the drive the Packers had to get into the playoffs.quote:Originally posted by packerboi:quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
So the Patriots can score 36. The Jets can score 34. The hapless Lions can score 14 and 20. Seahags 20. Redskins 17. The mighty Bills 19 (nearly doubling the Packer's total).
And the Bears defense had something to do with it. Maybe so, but it seems offenses far less potent than the Packer's offense, had something to do with scoring more than 10 points, a point total amassed by a Packer team at home in a must win game.
And you don't take into consideration the Bears treat the Packers just a tad differently then a team like the Bills?
When the mission statement of the Bears HC above and beyond anything else is to beat the Packers? Not to mention the drive they had to knock their most hated rival out of the playoffs?
BTW I love people who are still clasifying the Lions as "hapless". A team who won 4 straight including beating 2 10 win teams and without their starting QB.
Newsflash. This ain't Millens Lions anymore.
Why do you omit such obvious aspects of the game? (And conveniently, the ones that suggest the Packers should have performed better.)