No, I don't know if the Talking Heads are getting back together for a reunion tour.
No, I don't know if the Talking Heads are getting back together for a reunion tour.
No, I don't know if the Talking Heads are getting back together for a reunion tour.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
I don't know, I would have like to have played 90% of the regular season with some semblance of a running game. But maybe that's just me...
Still don't get it?
the burden of still having that third round pick will weigh on the team well into next year
I didn't see that third round pick contributing at all this year. Did I miss something? Also, I don't think I have to change my opinion on that whole deal because they made the bowl.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
I didn't see that third round pick contributing at all this year.
possibly the most ignorant comment I've heard all year from a Packer fan.
Or the most lucid thing I've heard from a viking fan.
I'm sure if you spend a little time you can dig up something more ignorant.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
But maybe that's just me...
No Maybe.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
Also, I don't think I have to change my opinion on that whole deal because they made the bowl.
Yes, you do...You really do.
Why?
quote:Originally posted by Sally-Ka-Nancypants:quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
I didn't see that third round pick contributing at all this year.
possibly the most ignorant comment I've heard all year from a Packer fan.
Or the most lucid thing I've heard from a viking fan.
D
CB was only thinking of the 7 year lockout we are about to experience. What good will the 3rd round pick do?
Why ask why? cause yous was wrong?
Doesn't the fact that they made it to the SB without, as you say, any semblance of a running game mean it's not as important as you think? The Jets and the Bears ran the ball very effectively this season, I don't see them in the SB?
Yeah Boris,why? With Marshwan Lynch we make the Super Bowl. Without him, what?
quote:Originally posted by Boris:quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
Also, I don't think I have to change my opinion on that whole deal because they made the bowl.
Yes, you do...You really do.
It's really an easy concept. They had a crap running game all year and he would have helped. I wanted them to improve a weak spot on the team and they decided not to and wait and see if Starks would be enough. He turned out to be enough at the very end of the year and they overcame the weak running game the vast majority of the year.
I still like this team better with Lynch/Starks/BJack at RB them I do with Starks/BJack/Kuhn. I never once stated that Lynch or another back was the missing link to a bowl appearance. I just wanted to improve the position at an earlier date.
I still like this team better with Lynch/Starks/BJack at RB them I do with Starks/BJack/Kuhn. I never once stated that Lynch or another back was the missing link to a bowl appearance. I just wanted to improve the position at an earlier date.
How do you improve on making the Super Bowl?? And what will you say when TT turns that 3rd rounder into a Pro Bowler in 2013? Get a clue.
Don't put it past these guys. One dum dum claimed to know better than TT because TT don't draft Favre.
quote:Originally posted by ammo:
How do you improve on making the Super Bowl?? And what will you say when TT turns that 3rd rounder into a Pro Bowler in 2013? Get a clue.
Are you saying this is a perfect team? A team without a weakness? The best player in the league at every position. Whether or not this team made the Bowl doesn't change my opinion that I'd still make that trade. I'd still would have rather have drafted Rice or Jackson over Jordy. Why would making the Super Bowl change my opinion on that?
Fact: CB thinks ML would have been a great addition.
Fact: The Packers are in the Super Bowl
Fact: We all know both these things
Myth: Lynch would make the Packers running game better. This is pure speculation.
Can we possibly never speak of it again? there ain't even a horse left to beat... It didn't happen, it ain't gonna happen and the GBP have a SB to win.
Fact: The Packers are in the Super Bowl
Fact: We all know both these things
Myth: Lynch would make the Packers running game better. This is pure speculation.
Can we possibly never speak of it again? there ain't even a horse left to beat... It didn't happen, it ain't gonna happen and the GBP have a SB to win.
Some people don't understand the importance of team chemistry. Thankfully, the GM of the Packers does and that's what is important.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
I didn't see that third round pick contributing at all this year. Did I miss something? Also, I don't think I have to change my opinion on that whole deal because they made the bowl.
He contributed as much as Lynch did. Throw in the fact they probably would've given up more than Seattle, they would've had to toss in a 6th.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
Are you saying this is a perfect team? A team without a weakness? The best player in the league at every position. Whether or not this team made the Bowl doesn't change my opinion that I'd still make that trade. I'd still would have rather have drafted Rice or Jackson over Jordy. Why would making the Super Bowl change my opinion on that?
Because we made it to the SB with Jackson and Nelson and Starks. What more would Rice and D. Jackson and Lynch have done? If don't make the playoffs then you could argue all kinds of possibilities, but there isn't anything else that would put us over the top...we're on top. You're wasting your breath.
If we would've had Lynch it would've been much easier. The OL wouldn't have had to block. We would've beat NE because Lynch would've ran for 200 plus yards. We would've secured homefield advantage and rested the whole team on offense because Lynch would've made the offense better. They only scored 48 on the Falcons. With Lynch, we would've had 5 more TD's. And everyone saw how he ran through the Bears D in the playoffs.
You don't like a white guy toting the rock?quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
I still like this team better with Lynch/Starks/BJack at RB them I do with Starks/BJack/Kuhn.
Yelling "KUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHN" apparently disrupts CB's vocal chords.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...index.html?eref=sihp
Brings tears to my eyes.
quote:Postscript: When Thompson traded Favre to the Jets, Green Bay ended up getting a third-round pick in return, the 83rd pick in the 2009 draft. The Packers, on draft day 2009, had already taken B.J. Raji in the first round, and now, late in the round, were calling around, trying hard to find a pick to take one more player in round one. They began talking to New England, sitting at 26, and could give second- and third-round picks, the 41st and 73rd overall, but that wasn't quite enough. They needed to sweeten the pot with one more good pick. So Thompson threw in the 83rd pick ... the pick acquired from the Jets for Favre.
"There has been a trade, and with the 26th pick in the 2009 NFL Draft,'' Commissioner Roger Goodell said moments later in New York, "the Green Bay Packers have selected Clay Matthews, linebacker, USC.''
Brings tears to my eyes.
quote:Because we made it to the SB with Jackson and Nelson and Starks. What more would Rice and D. Jackson and Lynch have done?
GD you need to add we made it in spite of Raji being on the team too. He is a Running Back two.
quote:Originally posted by TD:
He contributed as much as Lynch did. Throw in the fact they probably would've given up more than Seattle, they would've had to toss in a 6th.
If the Bills had a competent front office, they might have gotten a 2nd round pick for Lynch. *If* the Packers were really interested they could have played the Seahawks, Packers and Saints against each other to get the best deal. Instead they took the Seahawks offer and didn't give the Saints a chance to up the ante. That's why the Bills will continue to flounder.
Of course then the Saints would have beaten the Seahawks (because a mediocre at best RB can really tip the skale of talant) and then maybe the B3@rs which means that epic NFCC game never happens.
So thanks, Buffalo.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
It's really an easy concept. They had a crap running game all year and he would have helped. I wanted them to improve a weak spot on the team and they decided not to and wait and see if Starks would be enough. He turned out to be enough at the very end of the year and they overcame the weak running game the vast majority of the year.
I still like this team better with Lynch/Starks/BJack at RB them I do with Starks/BJack/Kuhn. I never once stated that Lynch or another back was the missing link to a bowl appearance. I just wanted to improve the position at an earlier date.
quote:Originally posted by chickenboy:
Me likes coaches (and GMs) that do both. Something tells me TT was head over heals for Claymaker to pry some draft picks out of the vice grip.
Me likes a combo of "talent" sprinkled in with "little engines that could" like Mr. Kuhn.
Waffleboy?
How am I waffling?
Do you want me to highlight the obvious?
If you are reaching and stating that I wanted Lynch over Kuhn you would be wrong. Kuhn would still be on the roster...at FB...
Summary:
CB thinks the Packers have a fine team, as is.
CB thinks the Packers would be a tad better with Lynch.
OK?
Why take frigging offense? Who the hell cares?
CB thinks the Packers have a fine team, as is.
CB thinks the Packers would be a tad better with Lynch.
OK?
Why take frigging offense? Who the hell cares?
0010 binary.
quote:CB thinks the Packers have a fine team, as is.
quote:Originally posted by phaedrus:
Summary:
CB thinks the Packers have a fine team, as is.
He thinks the Vikings do too.
quote:
Are you saying this is a perfect team?
Never existed, and that includes the '72 Dolphins.
I like the summaries. Kinda pulls the whole thing together.
âThe fact that heâs been able to cut and paste a championship team together, considering all the players they lost, is remarkable,â said Ron Wolf, a mentor and former Packers general manager. âThese days, you just donât see that.â
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...k+pblfEuoYcadQJTztaw
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02...k+pblfEuoYcadQJTztaw