BeeR Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 As I said elsewhere: if Rodgers had an actual team and/or coach around him he'd be scary good and Pack would have 1 or 2 losses tops. Unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Playing well against the Bears is pretty much equivalent to playing well against the Browns. That example can not be used. Ok, so the Green Bay defense shows up sometimes against teams that aren't very good. They get gashed deep, like a goats vagina against good teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 (edited) But if TT were really a good GM the O-line would be in good shape and the D would have personnel it needed. Â Never was defending TT, just pointing out a false comparision. Â Isnt this just like "if you take away AP's best run, then he only has 50 yards and no TDs". Its is convenienet to ignore the positive performances and play up the poor ones. Â IMO the defense has really OVERacheived this year being the first year in a new scheme and not having the right personnel. Edited November 8, 2009 by bpwallace49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyOne Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Â Erm, wow. Can I be hopeful Freeman has ability after this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 (edited) As I said elsewhere: if Rodgers had an actual team and/or coach around him he'd be scary good and Pack would have 1 or 2 losses tops. Unbelievable. Â Rodgers has to be accountable to his team. Every other QB in the league is. Why not Rodgers? He takes too many sacks and if he doesn't realize that by now than maybe he never will. Edited November 8, 2009 by MikesVikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 I'm not sure where I would rank the QBs in the division after Favre. Cutler? Rodgers? Stafford? which one stands out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Rodgers has to be accountable to his team. Every other QB in the league is. Why not Rodgers? He takes too many sacks and if he doesn't realize that by now than maybe he never will. Coaches call the plays, not Rodgers. Bottom line is when your line can't block, you don't need to be calling deep pass plays that take longer to develop. Without Rodgers this team is a two win team at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 (edited) Coaches call the plays, not Rodgers. Bottom line is when your line can't block, you don't need to be calling deep pass plays that take longer to develop. Without Rodgers this team is a two win team at best. Â Rodgers doesn't have to take half of the sacks that he does. Edited November 8, 2009 by MikesVikes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted November 8, 2009 Share Posted November 8, 2009 Never was defending TT, just pointing out a false comparision. Isnt this just like "if you take away AP's best run, then he only has 50 yards and no TDs". Its is convenienet to ignore the positive performances and play up the poor ones.  IMO the defense has really OVERacheived this year being the first year in a new scheme and not having the right personnel.  I'm just trying to stir it up and poke the packers fans, really. I would generally agree TT isn't the issue, though that o-line is one of if not THE worst in the league. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I'm not sure where I would rank the QBs in the division after Favre. Cutler? Rodgers? Stafford? which one stands out? I would put Rodgers at the top. You put Favre, Cutler, Stafford behind this line and they would be absolutely horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I would put Rodgers at the top. You put Favre, Cutler, Stafford behind this line and they would be absolutely horrible. Â Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piratesownninjas Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Rodgers doesn't have to take half of the sacks that he does. True, but you're missing one factor. The coach or play caller needs to put his players in position to win. Calling passing plays where your WR run 30 yards down field is not the way to do it. Â Â I would put Rodgers at the top. You put Favre, Cutler, Stafford behind this line and they would be absolutely horrible. Dude, it's Vikes fans. Every 10-15 years they get a good team, then try and goat packer fans into things. Just take comfort in knowing that they'll fall apart come playoff time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Â Â You seriously think Favre would do any better than Rodgers with this current Packer team? Â Favre is playing great but his offensive line and Adrian Peterson (also Harvin) have a lot to do with that. Plus the play calling for Favre is much better than Rodgers is getting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 True, but you're missing one factor. The coach or play caller needs to put his players in position to win. Calling passing plays where your WR run 30 yards down field is not the way to do it. Â Â Â Dude, it's Vikes fans. Every 10-15 years they get a good team, then try and goat packer fans into things. Just take comfort in knowing that they'll fall apart come playoff time. Oh trust me I have comfort. I get a lot of enjoyment at seeing the epic fails of the Viking organization and I think we are due for another one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh 0ne Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 You seriously think Favre would do any better than Rodgers with this current Packer team? Â Favre is playing great but his offensive line and Adrian Peterson (also Harvin) have a lot to do with that. Plus the play calling for Favre is much better than Rodgers is getting. Â Tough to say. But based on the INT's today it seems Rodgers has a bit of Favre in him. Â Listen, the Vikes scenario is perfect for Favre. Great O-line, phenomenal running game, decent wide receivers, good defense. He doesn't have to do it all himself and he's thriving on that. Do I think Rodgers is as good as Favre was? Not yet, but the jury's still out, ask me in 10 years. If I wanted a QB of the future would I take Rodgers, absolutely. Would Rodgers do better than Faver on the Vikes right now? Not sure. But Rodgers. as good as he's looked, still has to prove himself and prove to be a winner, and time will tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slickvick Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 As a Packer fan I am absolutely embarrassed.What a joke that game was.The Packers acted like they could show up and get the win.The special teams coach should be canned.I give the Bucs the credit they deserve as they took advantage of all the Packers bonehead miscues and won the game.I was just shocked the Packers did not show up today in a game that was a must win as far as a wild card spot is concerned.I usually do not criticize Rodgers but he played stupid,greedy football today.He was outplayed by a rookie in his first NFL start!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Tough to say. But based on the INT's today it seems Rodgers has a bit of Favre in him. Â Listen, the Vikes scenario is perfect for Favre. Great O-line, phenomenal running game, decent wide receivers, good defense. He doesn't have to do it all himself and he's thriving on that. Do I think Rodgers is as good as Favre was? Not yet, but the jury's still out, ask me in 10 years. If I wanted a QB of the future would I take Rodgers, absolutely. Would Rodgers do better than Faver on the Vikes right now? Not sure. But Rodgers. as good as he's looked, still has to prove himself and prove to be a winner, and time will tell. If you think I meant that Roders is better than Favre WAS that is not what I meant - no way is Rodgers anywhere near what Favre was. I do think at this point in time Rodgers is the better all around QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doobwaa Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 By this point in the season Rodgers has to know when to get rid of the ball....he holds onto it WAY too long. I mean seriously-he has to know how bad his line sucks....they remind him everytime the opposing D buries him. Â I dont care what plays are called- he has (or should have) the ability to dump off when he needs to. Grant is an above average receiver for a RB and he is underused in that role. Â Horrible display GB.....pathetic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hoyle Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 True, but you're missing one factor. The coach or play caller needs to put his players in position to win. Calling passing plays where your WR run 30 yards down field is not the way to do it. Â No doubt. Thiis is what I've been saying since the season started. Â Â Dude, it's Vikes fans. Every 10-15 years they get a good team, then try and goat packer fans into things. Just take comfort in knowing that they'll fall apart come playoff time. Â At least for now, the Vikings look poised to get in the Playoffs. How about Green Bay? Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Â Thompson and McCarthy are NOT the answers in Green Bay. Minnesota has a "TEAM" right now. Â Ha ha ha ha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 So how long till the packer fans start agreeing that TT and doughnut boy need to be replaced? :stirspot: Â I certainly think McCarthy has demonstrated he is a decent OC, average-to-poor HC. All talk. Â I'd like to see the players with a better coach before I call for Thompson's head. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Hoyle Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 As I said elsewhere: if Rodgers had an actual team and/or coach around him he'd be scary good and Pack would have 1 or 2 losses tops. Unbelievable. Â Â That is a wish. You don't know that. Leadership has a bit to do with winning as well. Rodgers hasn't gotten there yet. Â Unfortunately, he plays for a coach and GM who are both idiots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 I cant beleive that Bishop isnt playing over Hawk . . . I certainly think Hawk is open for criticism, but I don't get the unreserved love for Bishop - there's certainly a lot to like about the way he plays agressively but he's to prone to the killer mistake (see - Adrian Peterson 44 yd screen last week). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chavez Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 Rodgers has to be accountable to his team. Every other QB in the league is. Why not Rodgers? He takes too many sacks and if he doesn't realize that by now than maybe he never will. Certainly a fair criticism. Â I don't get why last season his sack % was reasonable (if still a bit high) but this year it's through the roof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted November 9, 2009 Share Posted November 9, 2009 GB has a GM that whose skills were overestimated based on initial results and now reality is coming home to roost. Believe me, Ted Thompson is mimicking Ted Ruskel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.