Packiderm posted:

I'd rather see Seattle win 10 Super Bowls than the Vikes winning 1. Now the Vikes losing 10 Super Bowls would be delicious! 

 Spot on, Packiderm! I never want to see a Lombardi trophy in the possession of the Minnesota Vikings! NEVER! 

Packers could see starting duo of Ryan/Martinez on Sunday..

Martinez has seemed like he was ahead of where Ryan was last year, and Ryan has really picked up his game this year. Not thinking they'll challenge the two All-Pro Seahawk backers, but such an improvement over what we've been trotting out there....

NFLFU cracking down on snow angels..

NFL says refs have discretion to penalize players’ snow angels

AP

Sunday afternoon’s NFL action featured two snow games, and two players deciding to have a little fun by making snow angels. But only one player was flagged.

In Chicago, 49ers cornerback Rashard Robinson celebrated a big play by making a snow angel and was penalized. But in Green Bay, Packers receiver Randall Cobb also made a snow angel, and he didn’t draw a flag. What gives?

“I think our officials used some discretion there,” NFL Senior V.P. of Officiating Dean Blandino said on NFL Network. “We do give the officials some discretion there and we don’t want to take the emotion out, and the spontaneity of the game. When you get to the 49ers game . . . the officials thought it was excessive and they flagged it. . . . I understand the questions about why is one snow angel illegal and one legal. But, again, the officials do have some discretion.”

Blandino added that the 49ers’ snow angel celebration lasted “a little bit longer,” although there doesn’t seem to be any clear standard for how long a snow angel celebration can last before a penalty flag comes out. It would seem that the NFL’s officials should have more important things to worry about than how long a player’s snow angel lasts, but it’s not the officials’ fault that the league has told them to make celebration penalties a priority.

Perhaps some day the league will come up with a clearer standard, such as treating celebrations like delay of game: If a celebration delays the game, it’s a delay of game penalty. If not, it’s not a penalty at all.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PS: Sunday forecast, snow likely 1-3 inches at Lambeau.

Again 1-3 inches? Not snow. I'll give you flurries.

The very best part of the 49er snow angel TD celebration that went on far longer than it should have and drew a flag was that the player that snow angeled stepped out of bounds at the 4 and the TD didn't count. But the penalty did. 1st down SF from the 19. Three and out. FG. 

While we're here. Jets at 49ers Sunday afternoon at Levi Stadium. Probably 1/3 full. Has any game ever needed Phil Simms and Trent Dilfer calling the action with Dan Dierdorf on the sideline more than this?

packerboi posted:

Sucks for Perry. I'd imagine best case scenario would be back for the playoffs

 

Playoffs? PLAYOFFS??   PLAYOFFS???    What you talking about Willis? 

GB has had a lot of injuries this year. Eddie. Sam might never play again. Randall. Rollins. Lang. Tretter. Cook. Bak. Ryan. Martinez. Clay. Aaron with another bad wheel.

Even with all this let's all agree that GB **** the bed this year. Period. The Indy and Tennessee losses were pure ****. Pure ****!!!! 

But GB is breathing. Barely. But breathing. 

Carolina and Arizona played in the NFC Championship last year. Both planned on this being the year. Are either going to be good NEXT year? 

Its tough to win a Super Bowl. 

But **** it's always fun to have a chance. 

ChilliJon posted:

Carolina and Arizona played in the NFC Championship last year. Both planned on this being the year. Are either going to be good NEXT year? 

 

Those closely following the Panthers have become rather concerned they have a serious case of the 'fuc* its' and are already envisioning tee times at their favorite 18 holes. If that's the case, that points to Rivera and his staff as well as Mr. MVP at some serious failed leadership in that team giving a damn.

The same people observing the above also aren't at all surprised Scam's attitude is permeating down the roster.

The 2015 Panthers were the anomaly.

Arizona got old.

ChilliJon posted:

GB has had a lot of injuries this year. Eddie. Sam might never play again. Randall. Rollins. Lang. Tretter. Cook. Bak. Ryan. Martinez. Clay. Aaron with another bad wheel.

Even with all this let's all agree that GB **** the bed this year. Period. The Indy and Tennessee losses were pure ****. Pure ****!!!! 

But GB is breathing. Barely. But breathing. 

Carolina and Arizona played in the NFC Championship last year. Both planned on this being the year. Are either going to be good NEXT year? 

Its tough to win a Super Bowl. 

But **** it's always fun to have a chance. 

Yep they sure have.  I am never ever one to typically blame injuries but this year there have been so many that it is tough to overcome.  Just look at the defensive side along.  When you have you best DB (Sam) out all year it hurts, and then your 2nd and 3rd DB's out most of the year, both ILB's hobbled, Clay has missed time (and the D is just different without him).  On offense Bak has been playing on guts, Lacy is out and not running game at all, and they have had to start a WR at RB.  All of those things and honestly it is a miracle they are sitting at where they are now. 

If you look at the NFC I really think (and yes I am sober) that they can compete with most teams.  it is going to be a fun ride this month and I LOVE it that we are such underdogs.  to me that is when being a Packer fan is most fun.

ChilliJon posted:

If GB just gave Ty Montgomery number 27 It would look like a 40 lb weight loss and an ankle miracle for Christmas. This time of year is all about miracles, isn't it? We'd be the jolliest bunch of a-holes this side of the nuthouse. 

The problem with Monty the RB, he doesn't seem to have that RB cutback vision.

Which way should he go?

Looks like a nice lane behind the Bakhtiari/Taylor blocks, only a DB to beat.

Instead he gets taken down by the safety for 4 yards. Should have been banging his head on the goal-post. Hopefully EB sees this and coaches him up.

But playing RB in the NFL is so easy. At least that is something I read on the internet somewhere.

Janis would have got in his way. Caused Ty to fumble. Returned by Houston for six. 

Any time Janis is on the field and you gain positive yardage and not turn the ball over or take a penalty, that's a win. 

Hungry - that's a great post. As GBFANFORLIFE said, a lot of people think playing RB in the NFL is easy. Imagine if you didn't have a lot of experience playing RB and now all of sudden you are running through the middle of DL averaging 330 and LBs averaging 250 and you are getting hit hard 25 times a game and you end up on the bottom of piles with 5-6 guys and close to a ton on you multiple times a game. That's a lot different than a WR or even a slot guy getting tackled mostly by DBs and an occasional LB.

Montgomery is a good football player who's forced to play RB because we screwed the pooch on RB personnel last off-season. You'd have to see a larger sample size to see if he often misses those cutback lanes, but he carried the ball 39 times in his career at Stanford. That's not a lot of experience reading lanes. Contrast that with Melvin Gordon - 343 carries in his last season at Wisconsin alone. Ezekiel Elliott carried the ball 562 time the last two seasons in college.

Ty misses a cutback lane and it turns into an indictment of the front office. Geezus f**q. 

Maybe if he had a virtual reality visor in his helmet he could see the lanes better.

GBFanForLife posted:

But playing RB in the NFL is so easy. At least that is something I read on the internet somewhere.

Right, that's what was said.

Lacy probably sees the cutback. Starks might have. Michael likely does. Ripkowski would've missed the cut back, but he'd have freight-trained the DB for about 6 more yards.

Lacy got hurt, Starks got old, and the yutes didn't develop. Not playing Michael more last week is on McCarthy. Especially when he has been saying, for the past 2 games, that they need to get Michael more opportunities.

Maybe Thompson or Murphy are keeping McCarthy from handing out those opportunities?

My post was not an indictment on Montgomery as a RB.

Montogomery is 6'2", 216 lbs. Essentially same size as Starks.

Running between the tackles shouldn't be a physical problem for him, but seeing the cutback in phone-booth football might be having spent his career in space.

Monty or Michael?

  -  

Ty is averaging 5.3 ypc, I would say his vision is good enough. Even if he's just getting 4 yards on a run, that's fine with me. 4 ypc is a 1st down after 3 plays. 

ChilliJon posted:

Ty misses a cutback lane and it turns into an indictment of the front office. Geezus f**q. 

That's why I included the phrase:

"You'd have to see a larger sample size to see if he often misses those cutback lanes.."

The front office didn't cover the halfback position adequately this year. I think most of us agree on that. That's why we had to spread the field in a snow game in December to get the offense moving. Lacy and Starks with nobody behind it (unless they decide to make Ripkowski the new Kuhn) did not set them up optimally for success.

Wasn't referencing the original Ty post H5, or you.

Billy B. Splits Woodhead out wide becasue he has no options, genius. Billy B puts a WR at DB because he has no options, genius. Mike puts Ty and RB because he has no options, front office f**q up. 

Ty isn't a RB. He's doing the best he can until Michaels and the OL get a little more acclimated to each other. Ty is one hell of a football player though. Stepping in and running the ball as well as he has is impressive stuff. 

Didn't think you were Chilli. I believe we were both disputing the position michiganpacker posted.

Former NFL RB's (including 1 who played in GB), who have watched GB's futile attempts at running the ball in 2016, including when Lacy was healthy, have pointed out time and again one of the main issues is no matter who's at RB they are not getting nearly enough carries per game for them to get into a groove.

When you are only carrying the ball 6-7-8-9 times, it's not only impossible to get into a rhythm, it's also impossible to get a feel for the game. Both pointed out the more carries you get, the more you start getting a feel for which OL are giving you lanes AND which DL are getting gassed and/or pushed so you then know where to run. EVERY game is different.

The above can only happen when at minimum the same RB is getting 18-20 touches. So, when Monty is only getting 6-7 carries, Rip gets 3-4, Starks gets 5, Michael gets 9, you see the problem.

It's not just RTFB! It's also feeding the same player over and over until they get into a groove and the run game then starts working.

It's apparently something MM rarely understands or commits to.

packerboi posted:

Former NFL RB's (including 1 who played in GB), who have watched GB's futile attempts at running the ball in 2016, including when Lacy was healthy, have pointed out time and again one of the main issues is no matter who's at RB they are not getting nearly enough carries per game for them to get into a groove.

When you are only carrying the ball 6-7-8-9 times, it's not only impossible to get into a rhythm, it's also impossible to get a feel for the game. Both pointed out the more carries you get, the more you start getting a feel for which OL are giving you lanes AND which DL are getting gassed and/or pushed so you then know where to run. EVERY game is different.

The above can only happen when at minimum the same RB is getting 18-20 touches. So, when Monty is only getting 6-7 carries, Rip gets 3-4, Starks gets 5, Michael gets 9, you see the problem.

It's not just RTFB! It's also feeding the same player over and over until they get into a groove and the run game then starts working.

It's apparently something MM rarely understands or commits to.

I get what you are saying, but it's a bit of a Catch-22. If you have a good back, you need to get him 15-20 touches, but if your RB isn't any good, getting him 15-20 touches isn't going to help. But you don't know that until you run him 20 times and risk tanking any offensive chance you may have.

If you have a guy like Ahman Green or the 2012-13 version of Eddie Lacy, you are confident that if you feed him enough and block even halfway decently, you'll eventually get yards. The problem is whether the jumbo version of Lacy or the 30-year old version of Starks is good enough to warrant 20 carries. If not, it will just end up with us having a lot more 2nd and 9s if the back ends up with 20 carries for 50 yards.

Lacy was getting carries before they IRd him and had a 5.1 ypc. I'd give Michael 15+ carries on Sunday.

Giving an RB the ball the first 15 plays of the game means 5 3-and-outs. 

The game will dictate whether MM RTFB or not.

With a lead, you might have more opportunities to run. If they're behind, it's pretty much get on Aaron's back (arm) & ride it until the Pack wins.

Grave Digger posted:

Ty is averaging 5.3 ypc, I would say his vision is good enough. Even if he's just getting 4 yards on a run, that's fine with me. 4 ypc is a 1st down after 3 plays. 

um, GD....you know on 3rd and 2, MM will call for an empty backfield and a 40 yard bomb to Jordy.  So, now it'll be 4th and 2.....  and then we all know MM will call for that 10 yard back-shoulder throw play that either Adams drops or forgets it's a back-shoulder throw.  So, we'd need 5 ypc from Ty.  

Hungry5 posted:

GBFanForLife posted:

But playing RB in the NFL is so easy. At least that is something I read on the internet somewhere.

Right, that's what was said.

No one said you were saying that, there were multiple posts in multiple threads about it. R E L A X

Team Player:

http://www.packersnews.com/sto...articipant/95149076/

Also on the field was right guard T.J. Lang, who on Wednesday told reporters he did in fact break his left foot in the loss to the Tennessee Titans earlier this year. Lang did not take any team reps during the portion of practice open to the media but went through some individual drills. He had a heavy tape job on his left foot but moved a bit better than expected.

Still, Lang remains a long shot for Sunday. Rookie Jason Spriggs is likely to fill in if Lang is unable to play.

"T.J.’s a big advocate in the classroom, particularly offensive line room," McCarthy said. "He’s made some individual tapes and cut-ups of things that he sees and specifics to help not only Jason because his goal, just quoting T.J., he wants to make sure that that right guard position is successful. That tells you the type of teammate he is, the type of man he is and the importance of winning. I think T.J. has been a tremendous veteran influence over Jason during that stretch."

GBFanForLife posted:

Hungry5 posted:

GBFanForLife posted:

But playing RB in the NFL is so easy. At least that is something I read on the internet somewhere.

Right, that's what was said.

No one said you were saying that, there were multiple posts in multiple threads about it. R E L A X

I never implied I was who posted it. 

The Catholic guilt is strong in this one.

*

Hope they resign Lang. He's been a good player for GB. When he was younger they put him in some tough situations, throwing him in at LT or RT and he got whooped. Hoped it wouldn't ruin his confidence and obviously it didn't. Glad to have him in GB.

I dig Ty. For many reasons. Clear case of strong parenting.

Ty and Lang. Could be the next great duo. I like it.

Yes, with Randall Cobb at QB....

Multiples.....

Now I am really confused.......