Packer fan thoughts

[deaster25]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I wouldn't care if he scores touchdowns or not. I want a guy who can come in and move the chains to protect the lead and protect the defense.

Packers are second in the league in First downs per game.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Marshawn Lynch has 225 carries this season. Grant/Starks have a combined 229.

If Marshawn Lynch was a Packer he wouldn't have anywhere near 225 carries this season. Green Bay is a passing team who has the best receiver corps in the League. I don't understand the obesession with Lynch he is barely a top 10 running back and he is better suited at a team who needs a runing back.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by deaster25

Packers are second in the league in First downs per game.

That's great. Still doesn't detract from my argument. The Packers don't have a runningback (or a collection of runningbacks) that they can hand the ball off to late in the game to chew up the clock and protect the lead/defense. Marshawn Lynch is that kind of back, as he showed (yet again) on Monday night.

Originally Posted by deaster25

If Marshawn Lynch was a Packer he wouldn't have anywhere near 225 carries this season.

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion since Grant/Starks have combined for more attempts this season than Lynch. It's not a stretch to project him having somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 carries at this point in the season. Just to take it a step further, in 2009 when the Packers had a primary back (Grant), he had 282 carries with Rodgers attempting more passes per game than he is on pace for this season. Lynch would've filled that roll perfectly, and done it better than Grant did in 2009.

Originally Posted by deaster25

Green Bay is a passing team who has the best receiver corps in the League.

No argument here.

Originally Posted by deaster25

I don't understand the obesession with Lynch he is barely a top 10 running back

Yeah, because God forbid the Packers have a (young) top ten runningback at their disposal that actually would've saved the team $1.5 million dollars this season. What am I thinking?

Originally Posted by deaster25

and he is better suited at a team who needs a runing back.

I would love to know how Grant/Starks are better suited to this team, when Lynch literally does everything better on the football field than either one.

[deaster25]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I would love to know how Grant/Starks are better suited to this team, when Lynch literally does everything better on the football field than either one.

The facts are that Green Bay mostly only runs the ball when they need to run time off of the clock and so far there has been no problem doing that.

The Packers have scored the most points in the league and are 23rd in the league in plays from scrimmage. Anytime a team can score that fast the other team is going to have more tries to score points therefore are going to.

Last we are Packers fans why complain and argue about what could have been when obviously something is going right nothing should take the focus away from the amazing season that they have had, just enjoy it like the rest of us.

[RevSmoke]

So, what are the thoughts for score of Sunday's game?

Packers win 38-16

[Emjaysmash]

Originally Posted by RevSmoke

So, what are the thoughts for score of Sunday's game?

Packers win 38-16

Who are we beating... er playing, again?

[deaster25]

Originally Posted by RevSmoke

So, what are the thoughts for score of Sunday's game?

Packers win 47-9!

[deaster25]

Originally Posted by Emjaysmash

Who are we beating... er playing, again?

Kansas City Chiefs

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by deaster25

The facts are that Green Bay mostly only runs the ball when they need to run time off of the clock and so far there has been no problem doing that.

They've let teams sneak back into games all season due to the lack of ability to eat up the clock coupled with a porous defense. How many times have they been bailed about by a timely interception with their backs against the wall? Sorry, I'm not nearly as confident as you seem to be in that continuing. At some point, the clock strikes midnight.

Originally Posted by deaster25

The Packers have scored the most points in the league and are 23rd in the league in plays from scrimmage. Anytime a team can score that fast the other team is going to have more tries to score points therefore are going to.

That's why it's vital to have a player of Lynch's caliber (it doesn't even have to be Lynch; but it's vital to have that be part of your arsenal if you're going to call off the dogs like the Packers do) to protect the leads (and the defense) built up by grinding out some first downs on the ground and chewing up the clock. That isn't happening so it is giving teams new life every week.

Originally Posted by deaster25

Last we are Packers fans why complain and argue about what could have been when obviously something is going right nothing should take the focus away from the amazing season that they have had, just enjoy it like the rest of us.

I am enjoying it, but as I said earlier, this is a problem with the organization that I have that stems from last season, and magnified by the fact that they took a runningback with the pick that Buffalo asked for in return. I apologize if I can't/won't blindly follow lockstep and not voice a disagreement when one arises. I watched as Ron Wolf became bulletproof because of assembling a team that made it to two Super Bowls, but yet completely mismanaged the team from the late 90's onward (poor draft selections, poor free agent acquisitions, the handling of Mike Holmgren, poor coaching hirings) up until the time he bumbled the reins over to Mike Sherman.

[14holestogie]

While you bring up a lot of valid points, Stephen, if Starks doesn't get dinged up 6 weeks ago (or if we brought in Lynch and he had gotten hurt), we probably aren't having this conversation. Injuries are a part of the game and while we may not have a deep pool of talent at the running back position, we do have servicable talent. Nobody's totally right or wrong. Now we're debating opinions. Nobody wins that game.

I say we call a truce and you make it up for one of the NWWHerf and we'll arm wrestle.

[deaster25]

I don't have any other option than to be confident. I'm just a fan after all.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by 14holestogie

Now we're debating opinions. Nobody wins that game.

And it's admittedly a petty squabble, but for some reason it's a burr under my saddle.

Originally Posted by 14holestogie

I say we call a truce and you make it up for one of the NWWHerf and we'll arm wrestle.

I've heard about you...

[Volusianator]

The Packers worked out 4 new running backs this week, we NEED a running back.

Originally Posted by deaster25

better suited at a team who needs a runing back.

[RevSmoke]

Originally Posted by Stephen

And it's admittedly a petty squabble, but for some reason it's a burr under my saddle.

I've heard about you...

I have lots of burrs under my saddle. I learned to just wipe them away sometimes and not worry about them. They just get me in a foul mood.

I think Tim's right. You should join us for a herf - have a couple cigars, some great food, something to wet the palate, and enjoy the company of those who share a passion about cigars.

So, what's the score going to be Sunday?

[MarkinAZ]

Originally Posted by Stephen

That's great. Still doesn't detract from my argument. The Packers don't have a runningback (or a collection of runningbacks) that they can hand the ball off to late in the game to chew up the clock and protect the lead/defense...

Just thought I'd throw my three cents into this. The last time I looked, we have the following backs available to us:

John Kuhn, Brandon Saine, and Ryan Grant. I have solid confidence in this group. Starks is currently sidelined, but will most likely return at some point in time (not a big issue), and that will give us four backs once again. I enjoy watching all three of these backs, and combined with the passing core of receivers, it simply becomes a winning machine

Originally Posted by RevSmoke

So, what's the score going to be Sunday?

I'm going with the following:

PACKERS 42 CHIEFS 17

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by RevSmoke

I have lots of burrs under my saddle. I learned to just wipe them away sometimes and not worry about them. They just get me in a foul mood.

I think Tim's right. You should join us for a herf - have a couple cigars, some great food, something to wet the palate, and enjoy the company of those who share a passion about cigars.

I'd love to, brother.

Originally Posted by RevSmoke

So, what's the score going to be Sunday?

If Orton plays, I think they'll put up a bit of a fight. I'll say 34-13

If not, they'll roll over like puppies wanting their belly scratched. I'll say 37-3, but only because McCarthy calls off the dogs like he did last week.

[shilala]

I'm all about the Packers winning right till they meet the Steelers in the Super Bowl again this year.
I just see this year's Pack like the 2004 Steelers who finished at 15-1, had a 13-0 run with Ben as a rookie, and lost in the AFC Championship to New England.
That's the game when they finally played a well-rounded ball club and all their deficiencies flared. It looked like they didn't even show up at a 41-27 loss.

The Pack had the number one softest schedule in the NFL this year. They're 27th in rushing the ball (granted, it hasn't mattered, but they haven't played a team with a decent secondary, or a secondary that wasn't nicked up).
The Defense gives up 21 points a game despite the fact that they hardly ever see the field.
They have been in a large number of very close games against very bad teams because of that imbalance, less so in this second half than the first half of the season, but the fact remains. I think they'd be in better shape with a couple losses and really well tested than where they sit today. But you gotta go with what you have, and the Packers have the most incredible offense I've seen since Kurt Warner's Rams. They are a joy to watch.

It's football. Any given Sunday. I'd love to see Aaron Rodgers get that perfect season if the Steelers aren't in the mix, and I absolutely LOVE to watch them play ball.

[shilala]

Oh, by the way, the Steeler's 2004 season...
They had the softest schedule in the NFL that year.

[14holestogie]

I'm sensing another Grape Swisher bet coming on, Scooter.

[RevSmoke]

Originally Posted by 14holestogie

I'm sensing another Grape Swisher bet coming on, Scooter.

I don't bet with welchers - he never did fulfill his part of that bet and smoke his Swisher.

Not that I necessarily blame him.

Besides, aren't we a little ahead of the program.

1) Get into the play-offs. (I think we can safely say that both the Packers and Steeler will do so. Although, the Steelers haven't yet sealed the deal and anything can happen in the next three week.

2) Win through the play-offs to get to the Super Bowl. And here there are no guarantees. I am not 100% sold that the Packers can do this. The defense will need to seriously step up their game if that's going to happen. We have won because of big plays, but we cannot stop anybody from moving up and down the field. We need to stop people first, big plays second.

At least that's the way I see it.

[MarkinAZ]

Originally Posted by RevSmoke

2) Win through the play-offs to get to the Super Bowl. And here there are no guarantees. I am not 100% sold that the Packers can do this. The defense will need to seriously step up their game if that's going to happen. We have won because of big plays, but we cannot stop anybody from moving up and down the field. We need to stop people first, big plays second.

At least that's the way I see it.

Well, maybe if people would: 1) stop the sissy shoulder tackling and start hitting from the waist down while wrapping their arms around the ball carrier, 2) hit the ball carrier before they explode out from the line of scrimmage, and 3) gang tackle, then we will stop the "up and down the field issue."

There's nothing wrong with hitting low and gang tackling you know...