| Chicago Fanatics Message Board http://chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| Green Bay Packers http://chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=82801 |
Page 22 of 28 |
| Author: | Scorehead [ Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
This Packers team has really regressed as the season has gone on. I love it. |
|
| Author: | veganfan21 [ Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
|
|
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
| what a great way to cap off the Christmas weekend. |
|
| Author: | W_Z [ Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
ouch. 31-0 now. |
|
| Author: | Scorehead [ Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
| Might want to consider pulling ARod from this game. |
|
| Author: | RFDC [ Sun Dec 27, 2015 9:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
|
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Mon Dec 28, 2015 9:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
fun |
|
| Author: | 312player [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Vikes putting it on em in Lambeau. Might be a good thing for GB tho.. Winner gets Seattle n loser gets skins. |
|
| Author: | Nas [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
I lost to a Kirk Cousins led team because of Aaron Rodgers. |
|
| Author: | BD [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
312player wrote: Vikes putting it on em in Lambeau. Might be a good thing for GB tho.. Winner gets Seattle n loser gets skins. Could be a blessing in disguise, except that GB is not a good team and haven't been since that 6-0 start. Their offense is completely broken, and these game plans designed around running the ball with Lacy aren't doing anything but chewing up clock. Maybe they turn these around in the 4th quarter or next week, but hard to see how. |
|
| Author: | Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Sun Jan 03, 2016 10:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
BD wrote: 312player wrote: Vikes putting it on em in Lambeau. Might be a good thing for GB tho.. Winner gets Seattle n loser gets skins. Could be a blessing in disguise, except that GB is not a good team and haven't been since that 6-0 start. Their offense is completely broken, and these game plans designed around running the ball with Lacy aren't doing anything but chewing up clock. Maybe they turn these around in the 4th quarter or next week, but hard to see how. Losing tonight would give them a chance to win 1 play-off game but they are a very vulnerable team. They have zero chance at making a run. No deep threat at all...easy to defend. |
|
| Author: | 312player [ Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
I'm not sure they beat Washington in RFK, Skins are just as good as Minnesota. |
|
| Author: | BD [ Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Zippy-The-Pinhead wrote: BD wrote: 312player wrote: Vikes putting it on em in Lambeau. Might be a good thing for GB tho.. Winner gets Seattle n loser gets skins. Could be a blessing in disguise, except that GB is not a good team and haven't been since that 6-0 start. Their offense is completely broken, and these game plans designed around running the ball with Lacy aren't doing anything but chewing up clock. Maybe they turn these around in the 4th quarter or next week, but hard to see how. Losing tonight would give them a chance to win 1 play-off game but they are a very vulnerable team. They have zero chance at making a run. No deep threat at all...easy to defend. It could be a blessing in disguise to get Washington on the road vs. Seattle at home, but if they continue playing the way they have, they are probably going to lose to the Redskins. |
|
| Author: | Walt Williams Neck [ Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
|
|
| Author: | Arlington Hts Archie [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 10:35 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Gonna win the Super Bowl. Can wait to see my boy Dom Capers fitted for another ring. |
|
| Author: | 312player [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
I think Zona or Carolina whoop em, that o- line is still real bad. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:06 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
312player wrote: I think Zona or Carolina whoop em, that o- line is still real bad. receivers aren't very good either. They weren't exactly getting open yesterday. When they were open, Rodgers missed them. Packers went down 11-0. They would have been buried by a good team at that point. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Agreed. Despite it being difficult to dominate a team two times in a row, I'd be really surprised if GB kept this next game within single digits. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
The blowout was because of turnovers. I think the Pack can play an error free game and still get pounded. Try the Cobb out of the backfield for longer than a couple of plays against the Cards and he may be going home in a body bag. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
good dolphin wrote: The blowout was because of turnovers. I think the Pack can play an error free game and still get pounded. Try the Cobb out of the backfield for longer than a couple of plays against the Cards and he may be going home in a body bag. You'll see that look this weekend. It's where he's the most effective, and it's the playoffs. Not a time for restraint. |
|
| Author: | Arlington Hts Archie [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Packers will win this week. Everyone knows this. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Mon Jan 11, 2016 5:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
It's one game... in the NFL... against Aaron Rodgers. To make any definitive statements would be crazy. That said, Arizona by 50. |
|
| Author: | Arlington Hts Archie [ Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Quote: Unrestricted Free Agents: OT Don Barclay K Mason Crosby LS Brett Goode (currently on IR) DT Letroy Guion CB Casey Hayward WR James Jones FB John Kuhn OLB Mike Neal OLB Nick Perry (declined 5th-year option) TE Andrew Quarless NT B.J. Raji S Sean Richardson (currently on IR) RB James Starks QB Scott Tolzien Restricted Free Agents: OLB Andy Mulumba G Lane Taylor Exclusive-Rights Free Agents: S Chris Banjo TE Justin Perillo Of that crew I see Crosby, Guion, Neal and Starks back. No difference if Raji returns. I'd welcome Perry only if he signs cheap. Heyward probably gets overpaid somewhere else. The future is bright for the Packers and the division still runs through Green Bay for a minimum of the next 10 years. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:23 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
I don't see how you couldn't have seen that power shift towards Minnesota. I expect Bridgewater to progress and much of their talent to remain static. Even if Peterson slows down, I love what I've seen of Mc Kinnon |
|
| Author: | Arlington Hts Archie [ Mon Jan 18, 2016 10:30 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Minnesota will be a very good 2nd place team for the next 5 years. Zimmer is an excellent coach and their GM is a solid drafter. However, Bridgewater's ceiling is probably a slightly better Alex Smith. Can't win a Super Bowl with a checkdown QB. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
good dolphin wrote: I don't see how you couldn't have seen that power shift towards Minnesota. I expect Bridgewater to progress and much of their talent to remain static. Even if Peterson slows down, I love what I've seen of Mc Kinnon Bridgewater places a pretty hard ceiling on Minnesota. I think they'll compete with Green Bay when Green Bay isn't having a great regular season, but I doubt they will be a Super Bowl contender with Bridgewater ever. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
FavreFan wrote: good dolphin wrote: I don't see how you couldn't have seen that power shift towards Minnesota. I expect Bridgewater to progress and much of their talent to remain static. Even if Peterson slows down, I love what I've seen of Mc Kinnon Bridgewater places a pretty hard ceiling on Minnesota. I think they'll compete with Green Bay when Green Bay isn't having a great regular season, but I doubt they will be a Super Bowl contender with Bridgewater ever. like most dome teams, I think there playoff success will be dome dependent |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Mon Jan 18, 2016 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
good dolphin wrote: FavreFan wrote: good dolphin wrote: I don't see how you couldn't have seen that power shift towards Minnesota. I expect Bridgewater to progress and much of their talent to remain static. Even if Peterson slows down, I love what I've seen of Mc Kinnon Bridgewater places a pretty hard ceiling on Minnesota. I think they'll compete with Green Bay when Green Bay isn't having a great regular season, but I doubt they will be a Super Bowl contender with Bridgewater ever. like most dome teams, I think there playoff success will be dome dependent What does that mean? |
|
| Author: | W_Z [ Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:07 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
minnesota doesn't play in a dome anymore. |
|
| Author: | FavreFan [ Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
W_Z wrote: minnesota doesn't play in a dome anymore. I was gonna say that, but then I googled it and it looks like they will play in a fixed roof stadium starting next year. I'll give dolphin the benefit of the doubt there. But I still don't know what his post meant. |
|
| Page 22 of 28 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|