Pack WILL get #2 seed

GD, no way Seattle loses two at home.

Not confident GB will beat Min in the last game....all depends on what is left to play for. ARod may not play the whole game and Harrell is no Flynn

I think Was takes the East, Sea and Chi take the wild cards.

I just hope GB doesnt have to play SF in the playoffs, regardless of where it is. I think their defense matches up too well against GB.

I don't know, I don't see the mental toughness from Seattle. It will be interesting to see how Senecca Wilson handles the pressure.

I do hope you're right though about Washington taking the NFCE and Chi/Sea taking the wildcards. I don't want to see NY in the playoffs. I don't want to see San Fran either, but I feel like at this point we know a lot more about GB and San Fran than we did in week 1. It will be interesting to see how their young QB responds also.

quote:

No way the Seahawks lose next Sunday

Hmmmmm.

quote:

Anyone else in the NFC, I'm not worried about.....at all

Not even the amazing, terrific, unbeatable Giants? They beat us by 28 points and made everyone on this forum wet their pants.

Aren't there a few of you on here who think the Packers might as well roll over against the Giants?

Besides, how could be ever beat a team we've lost to twice in a row? We suck. Seasons over.

There is actually a real scenario where MN would be at GB wildcard weekend. Seahags would travel to Washington. Let's say GB knocks off MN, and Seahawks beat Wash.

The Next week would be GB at Atl and Seahawks at SF

It is then entirely possible given GBs record against Atl, GB beats Atl, Seahawks upset SF..


SEAHAWKS AT GREEN BAY FOR NFC TITLE!!!

Speak for yourself bubbleboy. I know many on here who did not wet their pants. The Giants were the better team that day against an unprepared and injured Packer team. Time for you to put your bigboy pants on unless you are just going to wet them again.

I was at that game in what? '04?

January 4, 2004.

quote:

Originally posted by GBP1:

quote:

Originally posted by Troy:
I hope to hell that they don't sit any starters. This team needs to keep the momentum going. Resting the starters in the final game last year played a role in the loss to The Giants.

They wont sit the starters. MM doesnt make the same dumb mistake twice.

Sarcasm? I love MM but he does get a bit stubborn at times.

I say you rest only players that need the rest to get more healthy.

agreed Esox. it's all about continuity and rhythm now. you don't get the motor all primed to run only to let it sit in the garage for a week and find you have a dead battery after that.

I don't understand why some of you are against sitting players. There's no point in risking unnecessary injuries, and a professional team especially the Packers should be able to maintain the same level of play.

Nick - it's kind of like damn if you do and damn if you don't. However,I think losing the rhythm is more likely than losing a player. Although, losing a key player would be devastating, I still think not playing the HEALTHY players is more of a risk.

quote:

Originally posted by Nick:
I don't understand why some of you are against sitting players. There's no point in risking unnecessary injuries, and a professional team especially the Packers should be able to maintain the same level of play.

You would think so, but that isn't always the case. The team with the fullest head of steam and the most momentum is usually the one that wins in the playoffs. Teams like the Packers, who seem to live or die by the momentum, need that rhythm going into and during the playoffs. I think that's what happened in 2011. The Giants came in with the momentum, several of the Packers starters had 2 weeks off and were definitely out of rhythm.

I don't want no stinking bye! We haven't exactly been hitting on all cylinders, guys. Admit it! We need Jordy AND Jennings AND Matthews all on the field, and go get our timing and coordination down so we'll be a finely tuned machine through the playoffs! Yes, we're in the playoffs, but does anyone see us dominating the field of contenders? Not me. Time to rev it up,boys!

Yeah! ...and kick sum A$$!!!

Wouldn't it be ironic after all the controversy over Crosby if the Niners blow a game due to their kicker?

Akers

per the nfl, the following 3 teams can punch their ticket this week just by winning:

Bengals (@Pitt)
Colts (@KC)
Seattle (vs. SF)

That is correct.

Whether or not the Packers get a bye week doesn't concern me. Not having a week off hasn't been much of an impediment to winning a championship in recent years. On the other hand, McCarthy has a great track record after bye weeks during the regular season - so that's fine too.

What I don't want to see is the Packers having to play the Giants and 49ers in back to back playoff games. The Pack is certainly capable of beating both teams, but they are the two toughest teams from a matchup stand point in the entire NFL for Green Bay.

If the Packers are going to win the Super Bowl, they will almost certainly have to beat the 49ers in the divisional round. The only way around that is if the 49ers wind up with the 3 seed and lose in the Wild Card round. I'm hoping the Giants either win the east or miss the playoff altogether.

quote:

Originally posted by Nick:
I don't understand why some of you are against sitting players. There's no point in risking unnecessary injuries, and a professional team especially the Packers should be able to maintain the same level of play.

You don't need rhythm with smashmouth football, we ain't smashmouth offense.
We need to run timing on offense, the defense maybe can rotate guys more freely ... the offense needs to stay tuned up with all the parts coming back.

JMO.

The amount of injuries and seeing Rodgers limp around yesterday, I'll take the bye.