this is beyond absurd.
Warming up briefly on the sidelines is not the same as being in the game for almost an entire half.quote:Originally posted by ammo:
Read my 1st post on this page.
quote:Originally posted by pacfan:quote:Originally posted by Henry:...Freezing a couple of balls in practice ain't squat. Does that get you used to getting hit in that cold? Does it get you ready for making catches that you normally could make? No. Favre stuffing hand warmers all over his body in that facemask was too much. Eli is a Mississippi boy and he didn't look that helpless. I'm sorry, the proof is in the pudding and the pudding was smeared all over the camera for 3 hours.
You just practice in cold weather (BTW - how cold was it out east early in the week?) for a week and you're a cold weather freakin team? That's just an excuse, not a reason. The Giants outplayed and out coached the Packers. Why didn't Favre cave in in the Seattle game. It was snowing and nasty. Why didn't they let him go in and sit by the fire, the nasty weather wuss?
They outcoached and outplayed them because they couldn't adjust to the weather. Hell, I have a hard time saying they out played them considering the sheer suck of the offense and they only lost it on the FG in OT.
The Giants were out in shorts before the start of the game. They practiced in the weather. 30 degrees is better than 70 with no weather conditions at all.
The Seattle game it was almost 30 degrees, huge difference. That game didn't even remotely compare to the Chicago game which was another prime example of weather beating the Packers. They got beat and bad and the weather was as big a factor as the other team. Suck offense and still only lose by a FG in OT. Don't talk to me about how superior the Giants game plan was. They racked up yards all over the place, they should've blown the Packers out and they didn't.
quote:Originally posted by Max:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ammo:
I guess you didn't watch the game only 3 hours earlier where the best running back in the NFL took himself out of the game because he was ineffective. Never in 80 years....ha ha ha only 3 hours before.
Saw the game. It was a coach's decision because he had an INJURY.
QUOTE]
It was not a coaches decision. LT took himself out of the game. He told the coach he would not be effective. And besides Norv Turner who everybody including me, yous ay he had the guts to bench the best RB in the NFL but MM would never bench Favre. Which way is it?
And as I said the cold makes you just as ineffective as an injury does. Fingers too cold to throw the ball vs. broken finger makes you unable to throw the ball. Same effect.
quote:Originally posted by johnnie gray:
this is beyond absurd.
Yeah, the Packers being pussies in Green Bay for the Championship game is definitely beyond absurd.
I give up. A running back with a sprained knee is the same as a quarterback with cold fingers? Favre threw a horrible pass to Driver in OT. That doesn't mean he was "too cold to throw the ball." What about the good throws? The TD to Lee, the ball that Martin dropped? Dumb luck? In any case, I'm sure Rodgers would have had cold fingers too.
quote:Originally posted by johnnie gray:
this is beyond absurd.
The only thing absurd is we lost the game.
quote:Originally posted by The Crusher:
Wow, I didn't realize how truly clueless this board is.
Favre didn't play great but he didn't play awful. We put 20 points on the board with zero rushing attack. Manning had 3rd and 5, 3rd and 3 because they had a balanced offense. Does anyone realize the pressure that takes off the QB and the entire offense...especially in those conditions? The Giants are an all around better team than Green Bay...better offensive line, better defensive line, their LB's made more plays, their WR's made more plays...our defense couldn't stop them all day.
Favre is still a better QB than Aaron Rodgers, that is why he is our starter and most likely will be our starter in 08'.
Yeah, the Giants were so dominant they won on a FG in OT. True powerhouses. They won because they prepared.
quote:Originally posted by pacfan:Warming up briefly on the sidelines is not the same as being in the game for almost an entire half.quote:Originally posted by ammo:
Read my 1st post on this page.
Yah, Aaron Rodgers sitting on a heated bench wearing gloves and a parka is colder that Favre who is stuffing warmers in every open seam he can find.
Who were the big pussies?
The defense didn't look like pussies to me. I thought they played hard.
The offense? Heck, didn't the whole line come out in short sleeves? Tauscher sure didn't look like a pussy. Driver most assuredly not. Grant? Was he effected or was it just nowhere to run? (I am unsure.) Maybe Jennings and Jones as they were pretty quiet.
I am not so sure about this.
A couple things I am sure about though. The Giants run defense annihilated the Packers run offense. Burress and Manning played lights out. Harris couldn't handle Burress. Favre, once again, made a horrible decision at an incredibly crucial juncture of an incredibly big game.
The defense didn't look like pussies to me. I thought they played hard.
The offense? Heck, didn't the whole line come out in short sleeves? Tauscher sure didn't look like a pussy. Driver most assuredly not. Grant? Was he effected or was it just nowhere to run? (I am unsure.) Maybe Jennings and Jones as they were pretty quiet.
I am not so sure about this.
A couple things I am sure about though. The Giants run defense annihilated the Packers run offense. Burress and Manning played lights out. Harris couldn't handle Burress. Favre, once again, made a horrible decision at an incredibly crucial juncture of an incredibly big game.
quote:Originally posted by Max:
I give up. A running back with a sprained knee is the same as a quarterback with cold fingers? Favre threw a horrible pass to Driver in OT. That doesn't mean he was "too cold to throw the ball." What about the good throws? The TD to Lee, the ball that Martin dropped? Dumb luck? In any case, I'm sure Rodgers would have had cold fingers too.
quote:Originally posted by Hungry5:
I'd buy the Favre didn't like the cold if he looked like crap the whole game, but he didn't. He had some good throws and some bad throws. Did the cold effect him? Probably. My joints work slowly in the cold and I expect his do as well.
I figured this is appropriate for both responses. My damn busted up knees and chipped knuckles hurt as well. I'm 37 and anyone who says they don't feel the difference between 25 and 37 is full of ****. Eli looked solid through the whole game, just like Favre has all season when he isn't playing in cold weather. Half a game, half the passes doesn't get it done and it definitely didn't get it done. If he can't handle the weather trade his ass to Miami.
If you think Rodgers couldn't have fared better you're all too focus on soaping up Favre. Chicago and Dallas games bear it out. How much more mobile did Rodgers look in the Dallas game? How many plays did he make with his feet? How good did he look while getting the Packers back in the game. Gotta cut the apron strings girls.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
Favre, once again, made a horrible decision at an incredibly crucial juncture of an incredibly big game.
I think the throw was horrible more than the decision.
quote:I think the throw was horrible more than the decision.
I did at first as well, until I digested some analysis in the sports media.
The Packers were against the wind. Driver was not significantly open and it would have taken a near perfect throw for any chance of success. Donald Lee and Grant were both WIDE open.
I know where Bart Starr puts it. No doubt in my mind.
Henry - Where is the study that shows a team can become acclimated to playing in 0 degree weather by practicing a few days in 30 degree weather?
quote:Originally posted by Henry:
If you think Rodgers couldn't have fared better you're all too focus on soaping up Favre. Chicago and Dallas games bear it out. How much more mobile did Rodgers look in the Dallas game? How many plays did he make with his feet? How good did he look while getting the Packers back in the game. Gotta cut the apron strings girls.
Maybe we should get back to the original question. At what point do YOU think McCarthy should have benched Favre? Or Favre should have taken himself out of the game? Were you sitting there watching the game saying "Get Rodgers in there!" Maybe ammo was, fine, but since you believe his argument is a valid one, I'm curious if you were thinking any such thing during the game.
Could Rodgers have done better than Favre? Of course, sure. And he could have had an interception run back for a touchdown on his first throw. Anything was possible. That would have made for a fun board the next day. "Favre was cold and asked out of the game? Gutsy." Or, "McCarthy thought Favre was cold and Rodgers would be better. Makes sense."
The throw was bad for sure, the decision was not the best. He did have Driver IF the throw goes to the outside. Favre, after 17 years, should've known that in OT he could not make that throw considering he hadn't been good at for the previous 4 qtrs. Also, McCarthy should've known this.
From day 1 McCarthy wanted this team to be able to run the ball and then in the biggest game of the year he decided on a game-plan to throw-throw-throw.
For those who want to see Favre get another Super Bowl ring you better hope that Thompson and McCarthy realize the way to do that is with a kick-ass defense and kickery-assery running attack.
From day 1 McCarthy wanted this team to be able to run the ball and then in the biggest game of the year he decided on a game-plan to throw-throw-throw.
For those who want to see Favre get another Super Bowl ring you better hope that Thompson and McCarthy realize the way to do that is with a kick-ass defense and kickery-assery running attack.
quote:Originally posted by pacfan:
Henry - Where is the study that shows a team can become acclimated to playing in 0 degree weather by practicing a few days in 30 degree weather?
Try asking some players from the Bears & Giants.
Bears 35 Packers 7
Giants 23 Packers 20
quote:Originally posted by Shoeless Joe:quote:Originally posted by pacfan:
Henry - Where is the study that shows a team can become acclimated to playing in 0 degree weather by practicing a few days in 30 degree weather?
Try asking some players from the Bears & Giants.
Bears 35 Packers 7
Giants 23 Packers 20
Yeah, two games is statistically significant. What was the temperature in the first Packers/Bears game? Big surprise, the Giants shut down the Packers running game. That was a problem in the first half of the season and I don't think it was 0 dgrees in those games.
quote:Originally posted by pacfan:quote:Originally posted by Shoeless Joe:quote:Originally posted by pacfan:
Henry - Where is the study that shows a team can become acclimated to playing in 0 degree weather by practicing a few days in 30 degree weather?
Try asking some players from the Bears & Giants.
Bears 35 Packers 7
Giants 23 Packers 20
Yeah, two games is statistically significant. What was the temperature in the first Packers/Bears game?
Two crappy weather games, two no-shows from the Packers. Plug that into your spreadsheet skippy.
quote:Originally posted by Shoeless Joe:...Two crappy weather games, two no-shows from the Packers. Plug that into your spreadsheet skippy.
I thought I heard there was some evidence to suggest Favre was usually pretty effective in games where the temprature was below 32 degrees.
quote:Try asking some players from the Bears & Giants.
Bears 35 Packers 7
Giants 23 Packers 20
A statistician would reply by saying, "Try considering that the confidence with which you can be sure of your conclusion is a function of population size."
And 2 ain't a whole lot.
They could have mentally mailed in the Chicago game as a result of a few factors. One being that it is almost impossible for a team to be "up" for every regular season game.
quote:Originally posted by pacfan:
Henry - Where is the study that shows a team can become acclimated to playing in 0 degree weather by practicing a few days in 30 degree weather?
I don't need a study. I lived it. Weather is weather. A friggin' dome and 50 degrees difference is big. Plus, the Giants were out in the weather before the game getting used to it, the Packers weren't.
quote:Originally posted by pacfan:quote:Originally posted by Shoeless Joe:...Two crappy weather games, two no-shows from the Packers. Plug that into your spreadsheet skippy.
I thought I heard there was some evidence to suggest Favre was usually pretty effective in games where the temprature was below 32 degrees.
And how many years ago was that? Check recent history, he hasn't played in to many games below 32 degrees.
quote:From day 1 McCarthy wanted this team to be able to run the ball and then in the biggest game of the year he decided on a game-plan to throw-throw-throw.
In the first drive, the Packers went to the fullback. 13 yards. Then Donald Lee. Another 1st down. And I swear, I never saw those plays again. From the standpoint of the x's and the o's, I would REALLY like to understand the extent to which those kind of things, as well as short to medium slants, were taken away by the Giants scheme versus just not attempted by the Packers.
On that one, I have no idea. I just don't know.
How many short slant passes were thrown to Jones, for example?
quote:Originally posted by pacfan:quote:Originally posted by Shoeless Joe:...Two crappy weather games, two no-shows from the Packers. Plug that into your spreadsheet skippy.
I thought I heard there was some evidence to suggest Favre was usually pretty effective in games where the temprature was below 32 degrees.
I think that 'stat' needs changed to "Favre is like 86-2 when the temp is below 32° (but he's ZERO AND FREAKIN' TWO when the temperature is below 5° and/or the winds are hurricane force speeds)."
Better?
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:quote:Try asking some players from the Bears & Giants.
Bears 35 Packers 7
Giants 23 Packers 20
A statistician would reply by saying, "Try considering that the confidence with which you can be sure of your conclusion is a function of population size."
And 2 ain't a whole lot.
They could have mentally mailed in the Chicago game as a result of a few factors. One being that it is almost impossible for a team to be "up" for every regular season game.
Statisticians also crunch these numbers at a desk and not in 20 below weather. I'm telling you right now I'm your official weather statistician and Favre couldn't handle it. You can quiz me as I remember pulling off frozen boots from swollen feet after being in 20 below for a day.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:...And how many years ago was that? Check recent history, he hasn't played in to many games below 32 degrees.
COLD WEATHER EXCELLENCE
Born and raised in the South, goes against conventional wisdom by performing well in the cold
At home, now holds a 40-5 record including playoffs when the kickoff temperature is 34 degrees or below; possesses an impressive 90.7 passer rating in those 45 cold-weather games, based on 890 completions in 1,441 attempts (61.8 percent) for 10,242 yards, 79 TDs and 37 INTs
www.officialbrettfavre.com/bio/
quote:Originally posted by Max:quote:Originally posted by Henry:
If you think Rodgers couldn't have fared better you're all too focus on soaping up Favre. Chicago and Dallas games bear it out. How much more mobile did Rodgers look in the Dallas game? How many plays did he make with his feet? How good did he look while getting the Packers back in the game. Gotta cut the apron strings girls.
Maybe we should get back to the original question. At what point do YOU think McCarthy should have benched Favre? Or Favre should have taken himself out of the game? Were you sitting there watching the game saying "Get Rodgers in there!" Maybe ammo was, fine, but since you believe his argument is a valid one, I'm curious if you were thinking any such thing during the game.
Could Rodgers have done better than Favre? Of course, sure. And he could have had an interception run back for a touchdown on his first throw. Anything was possible. That would have made for a fun board the next day. "Favre was cold and asked out of the game? Gutsy." Or, "McCarthy thought Favre was cold and Rodgers would be better. Makes sense."
I wasn't particularly interested in that question but I'll play. Halftime. 10-6, one play. The rest of the offense stunk. If you couldn't see the fact the Giants were moving the ball and the Packers offense was hanging the defense out to dry you're fooling yourself. At minimum using Rodgers in different play scenarios to complement Favre would've been a option.
quote:Originally posted by pacfan:quote:Originally posted by Henry:...And how many years ago was that? Check recent history, he hasn't played in to many games below 32 degrees.
COLD WEATHER EXCELLENCE
Born and raised in the South, goes against conventional wisdom by performing well in the cold
At home, now holds a 40-5 record including playoffs when the kickoff temperature is 34 degrees or below; possesses an impressive 90.7 passer rating in those 45 cold-weather games, based on 890 completions in 1,441 attempts (61.8 percent) for 10,242 yards, 79 TDs and 37 INTs
www.officialbrettfavre.com/bio/
I said recent history.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:quote:From day 1 McCarthy wanted this team to be able to run the ball and then in the biggest game of the year he decided on a game-plan to throw-throw-throw.
In the first drive, the Packers went to the fullback. 13 yards. Then Donald Lee. Another 1st down. And I swear, I never saw those plays again. From the standpoint of the x's and the o's, I would REALLY like to understand the extent to which those kind of things, as well as short to medium slants, were taken away by the Giants scheme versus just not attempted by the Packers.
On that one, I have no idea. I just don't know.
How many short slant passes were thrown to Jones, for example?
Completely agree with this.
\quote:Originally posted by Henry:quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:quote:From day 1 McCarthy wanted this team to be able to run the ball and then in the biggest game of the year he decided on a game-plan to throw-throw-throw.
In the first drive, the Packers went to the fullback. 13 yards. Then Donald Lee. Another 1st down. And I swear, I never saw those plays again. From the standpoint of the x's and the o's, I would REALLY like to understand the extent to which those kind of things, as well as short to medium slants, were taken away by the Giants scheme versus just not attempted by the Packers.
On that one, I have no idea. I just don't know.
How many short slant passes were thrown to Jones, for example?
Completely agree with this.
I agree also. How many short passes were thrown to Robinson? Why didn't they scheme to get the other receivers in those situations where one broken tackle could get them 10-15 yards?
In the rush of some to pin this thing on Favre, or amazingly the decision to play him and stick with him instead of Rodgers (?!!), let's examine some inconvenient facts:
*The Giants started the 1st half with an 8 minute FG drive. They started the 2nd half with a 7 minute TD drive. That's 1/4 of the game on two drives to start each half and has nothing to do with the offense.
*The Packers rushed for 28 yards in the game.
*Yes, the Giants only won by a FG in OT. But anyone who watched the game knows the Giants basically blew a number of opportunities to put that game away before then. When you add up the unforced errors by the Giants -- two missed FGs, a TD called back on a hold, a drop by Burress at the 2 yard line, a drop by Toomer at midfield, a fumble after an interception, etc, etc, this was a 3 pt. cliffhanger in name only.
The Giants dominated this game and deserved to win. They outcoached the Packers. They played and executed better on offense. They played and executed better on defense. Any analysis beyond that (e.g., the Packers would have won with Rodgers) is hypothetical drivel.
*The Giants started the 1st half with an 8 minute FG drive. They started the 2nd half with a 7 minute TD drive. That's 1/4 of the game on two drives to start each half and has nothing to do with the offense.
*The Packers rushed for 28 yards in the game.
*Yes, the Giants only won by a FG in OT. But anyone who watched the game knows the Giants basically blew a number of opportunities to put that game away before then. When you add up the unforced errors by the Giants -- two missed FGs, a TD called back on a hold, a drop by Burress at the 2 yard line, a drop by Toomer at midfield, a fumble after an interception, etc, etc, this was a 3 pt. cliffhanger in name only.
The Giants dominated this game and deserved to win. They outcoached the Packers. They played and executed better on offense. They played and executed better on defense. Any analysis beyond that (e.g., the Packers would have won with Rodgers) is hypothetical drivel.
when the offense looked good, it was textbook WCO (minus the screens, those never worked all year).
when the offense looked bad, they looked like the raiders vertical offense.
One played to Favre's strengths (career strengths) and one played to career weaknesses.
when the offense looked bad, they looked like the raiders vertical offense.
One played to Favre's strengths (career strengths) and one played to career weaknesses.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:...I said recent history.
40 out of 45 games in weather below 34 degrees isn't good enough, but 2 recent games lost (one on the road) in cold weather makes him a cold weather wuss? Sorry, I don't buy it.
quote:Statisticians also crunch these numbers at a desk and not in 20 below weather. I'm telling you right now I'm your official weather statistician and Favre couldn't handle it. You can quiz me as I remember pulling off frozen boots from swollen feet after being in 20 below for a day.
I'm just not sure about this Henry. One reason being - the Bear game.
Last year, the Bears had nothing to play for and on Monday night, the Packers destroyed them. Was it a harbinger of things to come? No. The Bears reached the SB.
The guys aren't robots. In the regular season, they are not going to get up for every game. Now, in that Bear game, the players could have thought: "Wow. The weather SUCKS! We gain nothing in this game cuz Dallas has the #1 spot locked up and we've got #2 locked up. What the hell are we doing here?"
(Realizing, in retrospect, Dallas didn't have the #1 spot locked up.)
I just cannot place a lot of significance to the Bears game with respect to the climate. As I cannot, that leaves me with ONE GAME.
One game.
Man, Favre was given the task of moving the ball in that cold with nothing for a running game and knowing Manning had the luxory of knowing the Pack was having problems offensively while he enjoyed a semblance of a running attack and Burress there as the best kind of security a QB could ask for. (Not to mention little pass rush.)
When I reduce this to ONE GAME and allow for other factors that appear to me to be extenuating in the extreme, I am unable to say that "Favre and the cold" is an ultra-significant consideration.
I am honestly unsure. He threw a bad pick in OT in -24 and he threw a bad pick in OT in Philly in much warmer temps.
quote:Originally posted by RB87:
In the rush of some to pin this thing on Favre, or amazingly the decision to play him and stick with him instead of Rodgers (?!!), let's examine some inconvenient facts:
*The Giants started the 1st half with an 8 minute FG drive. They started the 2nd half with a 7 minute TD drive. That's 1/4 of the game on two drives to start each half and has nothing to do with the offense.
*The Packers rushed for 28 yards in the game.
*Yes, the Giants only won by a FG in OT. But anyone who watched the game knows the Giants basically blew a number of opportunities to put that game away before then. When you add up the unforced errors by the Giants -- two missed FGs, a TD called back on a hold, a drop by Burress at the 2 yard line, a drop by Toomer at midfield, a fumble after an interception, etc, etc, this was a 3 pt. cliffhanger in name only.
The Giants dominated this game and deserved to win. They outcoached the Packers. They played and executed better on offense. They played and executed better on defense. Any analysis beyond that (e.g., the Packers would have won with Rodgers) is hypothetical drivel.
Your reading into the argument is drivel as usual. 23-20 in OT, total domination. The defense kept that score, not the offense. Plus, nobody is pinning anything on Favre, he did it all himself along with MM's crappy preparation. You want a Favre teabagging, great. Don't expect me to suck balls.
quote:Originally posted by pacfan:quote:Originally posted by Henry:...I said recent history.
40 out of 45 games in weather below 34 degrees isn't good enough, but 2 recent games lost (one on the road) in cold weather makes him a cold weather wuss? Sorry, I don't buy it.
When did those games happen? That's all I'm asking. The simple fact is Wisconsin winters haven't been very brutal lately. Not a secret. Plus, the difference between 32 and 0 is pretty damn substantial. The difference between 70 and 0 is huge.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:quote:Statisticians also crunch these numbers at a desk and not in 20 below weather. I'm telling you right now I'm your official weather statistician and Favre couldn't handle it. You can quiz me as I remember pulling off frozen boots from swollen feet after being in 20 below for a day.
I'm just not sure about this Henry. One reason being - the Bear game.
Last year, the Bears had nothing to play for and on Monday night, the Packers destroyed them. Was it a harbinger of things to come? No. The Bears reached the SB.
The guys aren't robots. In the regular season, they are not going to get up for every game. Now, in that Bear game, the players could have thought: "Wow. The weather SUCKS! We gain nothing in this game cuz Dallas has the #1 spot locked up and we've got #2 locked up. What the hell are we doing here?"
(Realizing, in retrospect, Dallas didn't have the #1 spot locked up.)
I just cannot place a lot of significance to the Bears game with respect to the climate. As I cannot, that leaves me with ONE GAME.
One game.
Man, Favre was given the task of moving the ball in that cold with nothing for a running game and knowing Manning had the luxory of knowing the Pack was having problems offensively while he enjoyed a semblance of a running attack and Burress there as the best kind of security a QB could ask for. (Not to mention little pass rush.)
When I reduce this to ONE GAME and allow for other factors that appear to me to be extenuating in the extreme, I am unable to say that "Favre and the cold" is an ultra-significant consideration.
I am honestly unsure. He threw a bad pick in OT in -24 and he threw a bad pick in OT in Philly in much warmer temps.
Kyle freakin' Orton makes Favre look like Sally Sissybritches in that game and it isn't significant? ORTON!?
Posted 12-24-2007 02:54 PM Favre is no longer a Cold weather QB. He needs nice / dome weather. Old age has caught up to him. He is a below average QB with the weather <30 , where-as in his early years he was great <30. I don't know if Rodgers is the answer, but I do know you need some mobility and strong [young) hands in adverse weather.
Remember this?
Posted 12-23-2007 08:34 PM I've been thinking this for a long time and have argued with my brother about this. I was scared to post anything about it because I didn't want to get blasted.
The PACKERS are not a COLD weather team!!!!!!
1) Favre is getting old (in football years) = his body/hands cannot handle it.
2) Our running game is not superior.
3) Our "O" is built to throw the ball ALOT All Over the Field.
4) Our "O" is built on receivers getting the ball quick while using their SPEED.
5) Our Special Teams are huge to us because of SPEED.
Favre has had little trouble, Actually excelling the last few years in controled weather environments --- warm weather/dome games. He does not fit the bill as a cold weather guy anymore. The Cold has brought out the worst in him lately....
I feel much more comfortable playing on the road / warm/dome than playing at home <20 degrees...
Go Pack!!!!!
Get Healthy!!!!!
And this?
I wasn't referring to playing in Texas Stadium.....
I was just stating an opinion I've had for a long time....
Texas Stadium (while only a 3/4 dome) is better suited for the Pack "O" then <20 in GB....
Steamboat =
Remember this?
Posted 12-23-2007 08:34 PM I've been thinking this for a long time and have argued with my brother about this. I was scared to post anything about it because I didn't want to get blasted.
The PACKERS are not a COLD weather team!!!!!!
1) Favre is getting old (in football years) = his body/hands cannot handle it.
2) Our running game is not superior.
3) Our "O" is built to throw the ball ALOT All Over the Field.
4) Our "O" is built on receivers getting the ball quick while using their SPEED.
5) Our Special Teams are huge to us because of SPEED.
Favre has had little trouble, Actually excelling the last few years in controled weather environments --- warm weather/dome games. He does not fit the bill as a cold weather guy anymore. The Cold has brought out the worst in him lately....
I feel much more comfortable playing on the road / warm/dome than playing at home <20 degrees...
Go Pack!!!!!
Get Healthy!!!!!
And this?
I wasn't referring to playing in Texas Stadium.....
I was just stating an opinion I've had for a long time....
Texas Stadium (while only a 3/4 dome) is better suited for the Pack "O" then <20 in GB....
Steamboat =
