You're the 2nd one to comment on that Navy....so it must be true. 
perhaps the biggest key (and clearly the elephant in the forum) is that the Eagles did not trade for Marshawn Lynch when they had the chance.
quote:Originally posted by Henry:
Akers dealt with the elements just like the Packers did. The difference was the defense snuffed out Eagles drives to make them try for 3, the Packers put it in the EZ.
I guess the Eagles should have better depth like the Packers if losing one player dooms your entire season/playoff chances. Grow up.
Yes and yes. The Packers were the better team.
The Eagles thought they could play coverage, but Starks gashed them when they did. Our defense stopped their passing game - as most pundits said we would, because we had the speed to match up with the WR's. Desean Jackson was fine when he came back in. If you look at the reply when he got hurt, he did get rolled up on, but nothing was twisted. A couple of plays later he almost ran by Tramon Williams.
In the end, the Packers D and our ability to run the ball was the difference.
quote:Originally posted by YATittle:
In my opinon we won in large part due to his injury:
--he missed a lot of snaps in the first half. During this period, the Eagle offense didn't do jack.
--When he came back, he wasn't 100% and I think that cost them at least one touchdown. Remember that long bomb in which Vick overthrew him? I think it was a timing thing. The injury cut his speed. Had he not been injured, that's 6 points....
You gotta be ****ting me? You have way, way too much estrogen flowing through your body.
quote:Originally posted by Sally-Ka-Nancypants:
Can I get a witness from the congregation, Pastor p has spoken.
The fact of the matter is, I have no idea whether or not there is self-righteousness in my post - and neither do you.quote:Then why didn't you say that and leave the self-righteous BS at home.
BUT, I DO KNOW THIS.
I know I wrote my post at least partly because:
quote:And it really frigging makes me want to puke.
It really makes me sick.
So, the pastor and self-righteousness are judgment calls - and you don't know.
Actually Phaedrus....it was self-righteous.
It retrospect I should have just told you to STFU.
It retrospect I should have just told you to STFU.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
Thoughts
1)Topic subject matter is of a type that will naturally put a bug up people's behinds for the simple reason that we are Packer fans and we want to credit the Packers for the win.
2)And so it is natural to retaliate. Necessary? No. And better people would not bother.
3)Topic is of a nature that will incite the wrath of "certain people" and so we will get to see "Shut the F&^K Up" and of course this is somehow considered legitimate, when in actuality it is simply immature BS.
And it really frigging makes me want to puke.
Here is how I would have handled the topic.
"Dude! It was a close game. A ton of factors could have swayed the contest one way or the other. Let's credit our team for winning a huge game and not take away from that."
But, no. Some perversely legitimized "Shut the F&^K up" that in my opinion is a far greater "sin" then the topic itself.
Lot of words.
More of them about reverse peristalsis than about DeSean Jackson.
Weird?
This thread is dum, so here's a picture of a bumblebee taking a crap.
Dude....scoreboard was the key to the game.
Lets whine about how we won and why we won.
Today is a day for Thanksgiving
Lets whine about how we won and why we won.
Today is a day for Thanksgiving
quote:Originally posted by CAPackFan95:
This thread is dum, so here's a picture of a bumblebee taking a crap.
quote:Originally posted by PackerRick:
Jackson only missed the final 6 minutes of the 1st half and hadn't caught a pass when he left. The Packers took him out of the game and made him a non-factor.
This... They tried going to him deep once before the injury, Shields was in his hip pocket.
Did it ever occur to you that maybe Jackson is a 1 trick pony? If he cant run past you, there isn't much left?
Yep.
He does run underneath passes well but he's got gator arms.
He does run underneath passes well but he's got gator arms.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:quote:Originally posted by Sally-Ka-Nancypants:
Can I get a witness from the congregation, Pastor p has spoken.The fact of the matter is, I have no idea whether or not there is self-righteousness in my post - and neither do you.quote:Then why didn't you say that and leave the self-righteous BS at home.
BUT, I DO KNOW THIS.
I know I wrote my post at least partly because:quote:And it really frigging makes me want to puke.
It really makes me sick.
So, the pastor and self-righteousness are judgment calls - and you don't know.
STFU
Blair Kiel wrote of one of japf's posts:
You actually read the whole thing?
quote:That was a cry for help if I've ever heard one.
You actually read the whole thing?
I have a feeling the bumblebee taking a crap is going to become the replacement for Craig Nall with a pancake on his head.
quote:Originally posted by Mr.Yuck:quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
"Dude! It was a close game. A ton of factors could have swayed the contest one way or the other. Let's credit our team for winning a huge game and not take away from that."
Then why didn't you say that and leave the self-righteous BS at home.
Too binary
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
But, no. Some perversely legitimized "Shut the F&^K up" that in my opinion is a far greater "sin" then the topic itself.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
The fact of the matter is, I have no idea whether or not there is self-righteousness in my post - and neither do you.
quote:I know I wrote my post at least partly because:quote:And it really frigging makes me want to puke.
It really makes me sick.
quote:So, the pastor and self-righteousness are judgment calls - and you don't know.
C'mon YA, the Packers looked to be the better team yesterday and, if anything, should have beat the Eagles more significantly than they did.
agree to disagree
You probably will not see a single post where I start a provocation, but I have an extremely thin skin when I see people provoke others.
whatever, I'm easy. This isn't like lying in some foxhole.
You probably will not see a single post where I start a provocation, but I have an extremely thin skin when I see people provoke others.
whatever, I'm easy. This isn't like lying in some foxhole.
The Eagles not converting after the Underwood miscue was also huge.
The Packer D NOT LETTING the Beagles convert after the Underwood miscue was huge.
How bout giving some credit where credit is due?
Outside of the turnovers the Packers played arguably their best game of the year- on the road, in the playoffs, in a place they never seem to win.
They ran the ball well, pressured Vick, and didn't allow any big plays in the passing game. I also thought they contained the Eagles on special teams and MM probably called his best game of the year.
If we want to get into injuries the last time I checked the Eagles didn't have 15 guys on IR. You don't see the Packers whining about it.
Outside of the turnovers the Packers played arguably their best game of the year- on the road, in the playoffs, in a place they never seem to win.
They ran the ball well, pressured Vick, and didn't allow any big plays in the passing game. I also thought they contained the Eagles on special teams and MM probably called his best game of the year.
If we want to get into injuries the last time I checked the Eagles didn't have 15 guys on IR. You don't see the Packers whining about it.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
The Packer D NOT LETTING the Beagles convert after the Underwood miscue was huge.
Right, I was afraid of that ammo, but in the end, my sentence was shorter and means the same thing.
You guys, seriously. Every one here is a Packer fan. A guy thinks it was key that an opponent went down, it doesn't mean he crapped on your team.
I think what annoys people is the suggestion that the Packers got a tainted victory because Jackson wasn't 100%. I tend to think GB did more to impact the win than Jackson getting hurt.
Plus, if he was hurt so bad why was he playing? No excuses.
Plus, if he was hurt so bad why was he playing? No excuses.
quote:Originally posted by Tschmack:
I think what annoys people is the suggestion that the Packers got a tainted victory because Jackson wasn't 100%. I tend to think GB did more to impact the win than Jackson getting hurt.
The Packers definitely grabbed the momentum and came up big in the first half. Stopping them after the Underwood miscue and Jackson leaving the game certainly didn't hurt in that regard.
Packers get the win and by definition the credit.
I see what you're saying, but I don't think anyone thinks it was a tainted victory. It's pretty clear the Pack straight up outplayed them.
quote:Originally posted by Pistol GB:quote:Originally posted by ammo:
The Packer D NOT LETTING the Beagles convert after the Underwood miscue was huge.
Right, I was afraid of that ammo, but in the end, my sentence was shorter and means the same thing.
You guys, seriously. Every one here is a Packer fan. A guy thinks it was key that an opponent went down, it doesn't mean he crapped on your team.
Well, the thing is there is way to much of that type of crap post all the time. I'm not singleing you out here, but too many times it's the other team did this or didn't do that and not enough of Packers did this or caused that. Your post sounded like it was just the Eagles failed while I think it was the Packers forced tham to fail. JMO JMHO
I hear ya, it's just that this time, the point was the result itself--not who was responsible--that was a momentum changer. You read too much into it to interpret it as a slight to the defense here.
Not singling you out either, but it seems to me folks are getting too defensive about things like this lately.
Not singling you out either, but it seems to me folks are getting too defensive about things like this lately.
Packers deserved that victory and were the better team on the field for most if not all of the game.
While DeSean's injury may have been a FACTOR in the game, I don't believe it was a KEY to the game.
Keys to the game are....
Etc...
While DeSean's injury may have been a FACTOR in the game, I don't believe it was a KEY to the game.
Keys to the game are....
- Stopping the run
- Running the ball
- Turnovers
- Penalties
- Pressuring the QB
Etc...
quote:Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:
I thought my wife was responsibe for the Packer win. She is a Packer fan but does not like to watch the games. But whenever we get into a close game, I call her to come and watch the game cuz "I need help"! She came to the TV about the middle of the 4th quarter and by golly we won!!!!!quote:Originally posted by Benzene:
Yet again, whenever I turned the channel the Packers started playing better.
I think I was the key to the game.
Clearly I was the key to the game....
A.) I watched the first half with my mom at her house
B.) Had to drive home and wanted to get back (2 hour drive) fairly early so I left at half-time
C.) Turned the radio on and started to listen to the game...listened to the first 5 plays of the second half...fumble, TD Eagles.
D.) Listened to the first two plays of the next Packer drive...3rd and 5 coming up. Thinking I would be having road rage if the Packers didn't convert and for the safety of all on the road I turned the radio off for the next play.
E.) Couldn't resist and after 5 second turned it back on in time to hear "And Driver is pushed back but his forward progress will give the Packers a first down"
F.) Listened to the next two plays and when it was 3rd and 10 I turned the radio off again.
G.) 5 seconds later I turned it back on in time to hear "hits Driver for the first down.
H.) At that point I decided (since I had the game DVRing at my house) to do all of Packerdom a favor and not listen anymore on the car ride home.
I.) At 6:30 as I was pulling off the freeway, I decided to turn the radio back on to see what the score was and I heard Rodgers get sacked on thrid and 9 to force the Packers to punt the ball back to the Eagles after the two minute warning. I quickly turned off the radio.
J.) When I got home I ran into the house to join my son in watching the game and came into the room as Vick threw the interception to Williams.
K.) You are all welcome.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:quote:Originally posted by Pistol GB:
You guys, seriously. Every one here is a Packer fan. A guy thinks it was key that an opponent went down, it doesn't mean he crapped on your team.
Well, the thing is there is way to much of that type of crap post all the time. I'm not singleing you out here, but too many times it's the other team did this or didn't do that and not enough of Packers did this or caused that. Your post sounded like it was just the Eagles failed while I think it was the Packers forced tham to fail. JMO JMHO
Maybe there are a couple of people who are seriously trolling (at most), but I agree with Pistol that the "x4, not for pussies thing" has gone a bit too far. Personally, I can take it, but obviously it's far less enjoyable to post among a slew of personal attacks just because someone criticized the holy Packers.
I think that as a result people are afraid to say anything negative about the team these days and that's not good either. There should be room to discuss the successes AND failings of the Packers, because yes, we all are fans and we all root in our own way. Stay classy x4.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
personal attacks just because someone criticized the holy Packers.
I think that as a result people are afraid to say anything negative about the team these days and that's not good either. There should be room to discuss the successes AND failings of the Packers, because yes, we all are fans and we all root in our own way. Stay classy x4.
Total cop out crap. If you're going to start a thread called "key to the game" you better bring the facts.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
Maybe there are a couple of people who are seriously trolling (at most), but I agree with Pistol that the "x4, not for pussies thing" has gone a bit too far.
That's because you don't see the amount of posts that need to be edited or deleted. Not your fault - you don't see them - you only see the results. Trust me - there is PLENTY that comes from both cliques - the positive and negative cabals - that needs to be edited and eliminated.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
Personally, I can take it, but obviously it's far less enjoyable to post among a slew of personal attacks just because someone criticized the holy Packers.
This is a meme, and I think you know it. Everyone here has criticized the team. Showing up for the sole purpose of doing so will get someone stomped, as it should. Just ask yourself who was posting wildly during the last two-game losing streak and who has been completely absent since and I think you'll know what I mean.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
I think that as a result people are afraid to say anything negative about the team these days and that's not good either. There should be room to discuss the successes AND failings of the Packers, because yes, we all are fans and we all root in our own way. Stay classy x4.
Perhaps, but once again, don't confuse criticism/negative opinions with stupid. Honest opinions offered for the purpose of discussion is fine. Stupid for the purpose of (a) flaming the board, (b) feeling better about yourself or (c) drawing some type of attention to yourself will never be treated kindly.
If you really, honestly think that negativity is systematically eliminated, go read any game thread. You have posters basically eating their own feces for effect, and there are entire pages of that for your reading pleasure. If you really, honestly think that negative perspectives are simply censored, take a look at the bandwidth in this place after a loss and compare to after a win. Wanna guess which type of week gets double the traffic here?
Don't confuse a diversity of perspective with stupid, and don't use facts you're not in a position to understand as a basis for your point. Finally, don't get me wrong - I'm glad you post, because you seem like a decent guy. I'm just tired of seeing this same 'explanation' offered for perceived butthurt when it's simply not accurate.
quote:Originally posted by CJS:
...but I agree with Pistol that the "x4, not for pussies thing" has gone a bit too far. Personally, I can take it, but obviously it's far less enjoyable to post among a slew of personal attacks just because someone criticized the holy Packers.
I think that as a result people are afraid to say anything negative about the team these days and that's not good either. There should be room to discuss the successes AND failings of the Packers, because yes, we all are fans and we all root in our own way. Stay classy x4.
Agree 100%. I used to post some 'in the old days' (though I was never a volume poster) but now I primarily stop by to only read because this is still the best place for Packer news.
the Packers suck.... the life out of other teams!
A lot has to do with how you say it.
I admit it, I think the Packers were very lucky to win the game last Sunday. There are a lot of things that could have gone the other way. Penalties could have been called against the Packers on 3 of the biggest plays of the game. Maybe Jackson getting hurt did help the Packers. Maybe Vick should have clocked the ball before the last play.....
But so what. The Packers still won. That's football....sometimes you get the breaks, sometimes you don't. The Packers made a lot of plays too.
I don't think admitting the Packers could have lost is a bad thing. I also don't think that posters should be attacked for being negative...but it is a two way street. The OP in this thread is an opinion and it is stated very strongly. Some posters don't agree with that opinion. I don't think we have to take it to a PPBNP (positive posters bash negative posters) level...but the OP can be debated.
I admit it, I think the Packers were very lucky to win the game last Sunday. There are a lot of things that could have gone the other way. Penalties could have been called against the Packers on 3 of the biggest plays of the game. Maybe Jackson getting hurt did help the Packers. Maybe Vick should have clocked the ball before the last play.....
But so what. The Packers still won. That's football....sometimes you get the breaks, sometimes you don't. The Packers made a lot of plays too.
I don't think admitting the Packers could have lost is a bad thing. I also don't think that posters should be attacked for being negative...but it is a two way street. The OP in this thread is an opinion and it is stated very strongly. Some posters don't agree with that opinion. I don't think we have to take it to a PPBNP (positive posters bash negative posters) level...but the OP can be debated.
we should follow the viking message board model
quote:Originally posted by justanotherpackerfan:
A lot has to do with how you say it.
I admit it, I think the Packers were very lucky to win the game last Sunday. There are a lot of things that could have gone the other way. Penalties could have been called against the Packers on 3 of the biggest plays of the game. Maybe Jackson getting hurt did help the Packers. Maybe Vick should have clocked the ball before the last play.....
But so what. The Packers still won. That's football....sometimes you get the breaks, sometimes you don't. The Packers made a lot of plays too.
I don't think admitting the Packers could have lost is a bad thing. I also don't think that posters should be attacked for being negative...but it is a two way street. The OP in this thread is an opinion and it is stated very strongly. Some posters don't agree with that opinion. I don't think we have to take it to a PPBNP (positive posters bash negative posters) level...but the OP can be debated.
I think the point here is one can make the exact same argument the other way. It's pure speculation.
Penalties could have been called against Philly as well. Green Bay failed to make a couple plays ie Jones, that certainly could have affected the outcome in a big way, or at the very least changed the course of the game.
Was the little punk's shortlived boo boo a factor? Sure, but one of many. And all one has to do is look at week 1 to see what a huge factor Desean Jackson was in losing to the Packers that day.
Did his injury help the Pack? I suppose it may have. But looking at the way he plays the game, and the defense GB has evolved into, I don't see it as a huge factor. Jackson has been invisible in a number of games this season, then breaks out with a huge play or two and is the exalted one for a period.
He became a bit of a factor once he came back in, but so was Vick, so was Avant, so was Cooper. Injuries happen, and they all have the capability of affecting a team and a game. Would the Pack have lost if Jackson had played the whole game? Hard to say. But Vick played the whole 4 qtrs this time, after claiming he would have beaten GB had he done so in week 1.
I think the defense got it done. I think Starks and Rodgers and the o-line got it done, and special teams did their job to limit big plays. Those to me were the keys to this game.
Some people live in a world of negativity and then come here to share that point of view.
And when some other fans react negatively to that negativity, the Eor's act all surprised; which I find strange since they admittedly view the world in a negative light.
Of course they are going to get a negative response and instead of crying about it, they should rejoice in the fact that not only do they live in a negative world, but they are received in that same negative fashion. If you don't like it, try a different POV
Reap as ye sow, and if all you do is sow crap, then don't be surprised to harvest the same crap crop.
The OP started with this statement:
"In my opinion we won in large part due to his injury:" giving credit for the victory not to the hard work of the underdog team on the road, but instead to an injury for one player on the home favorite.
DJack was NOT hurt in the first game between Eagles and Packers at the same venue, so we already have a valid comparison of injured vs not injured
4 catches for 30 yards and 2 punt returns for 7 yards in a full game vs the Packers defense in September.
He had better production this time around WITH the injury !
The opinion was wrong, the facts do not support his premise and posting that junk on a Packer message board the day after a great victory says a lot more about the poster than the board
YA was 100% wrong, not only factually, but in his intent as well . Couple that with his other recent post calling the Packers "frauds" and he deserves every lump of coal he gets around here and more.
And when some other fans react negatively to that negativity, the Eor's act all surprised; which I find strange since they admittedly view the world in a negative light.
Of course they are going to get a negative response and instead of crying about it, they should rejoice in the fact that not only do they live in a negative world, but they are received in that same negative fashion. If you don't like it, try a different POV
Reap as ye sow, and if all you do is sow crap, then don't be surprised to harvest the same crap crop.
The OP started with this statement:
"In my opinion we won in large part due to his injury:" giving credit for the victory not to the hard work of the underdog team on the road, but instead to an injury for one player on the home favorite.
DJack was NOT hurt in the first game between Eagles and Packers at the same venue, so we already have a valid comparison of injured vs not injured
4 catches for 30 yards and 2 punt returns for 7 yards in a full game vs the Packers defense in September.
He had better production this time around WITH the injury !
The opinion was wrong, the facts do not support his premise and posting that junk on a Packer message board the day after a great victory says a lot more about the poster than the board
YA was 100% wrong, not only factually, but in his intent as well . Couple that with his other recent post calling the Packers "frauds" and he deserves every lump of coal he gets around here and more.