Green Bay Packers Thread

Arawn · 07-12-2011 7:10pm

Deleted User wrote: »

:eek:

I don't think I ever said I was "hoping and cheering" for the Packers to lose?

I think I said "defeat might not be such a bad thing". And then I said that for me it's an unwanted distraction when the focus must be the Superbowl. We have seen one team screw it up in the most spectacular fashion. I'd hate to think there was any possibility of history repeating itself.

such as going undefeated? after all that would be history repeating itself

Neil3030 · 07-12-2011 7:49pm

What's the secret of Packers' success?

The Green Bay Packers have won 18 consecutive games, and Sunday required just 58 seconds to drive 68 yards for the game-winning kick against Jersey/A, overcoming the defense and the home-crowds din as though neither were there. Next Sunday, if Green Bay defeats Oakland, the Packers will get to a 19-0 streak -- similar to the barrier the 2007 Patriots couldn't pass. Green Bay's offense is ultra-efficient, with Aaron Rodgers on a pace to set the quarterback rating record. Green Bay's defense gets the job done. Odds of a Lombardi Trophy repeat are strong.

What are the Packers' secrets? First, the personnel:

• Great players: All championship teams must have a few. Rodgers and Charles Woodson will be Hall of Famers. If they continue to perform at their current levels, Clay Matthews and B.J. Raji could be, too. Donald Driver and Chad Clifton have had great careers, and Greg Jennings is getting into that territory.

• Undrafted players: The Packers have 16 on their roster -- Jarrett Bush, Tom Crabtree, Evan Dietrich-Smith, Ray Dominguez, Rob Francois, Brett Goode, Ryan Grant, John Kuhn, Jamari Lattimore, Tim Masthay, Brandon Saine, Sam Shields, Shaky Smithson, Vic So'oto, Tramon Williams and Frank Zombo. Football is a team sport, and for team sports, little-known role players are as important as great players. Unlike highly drafted crybabies who think the rules don't apply to them -- Exhibit A, the Detroit Lions -- undrafted players listen to the coaches and give you what they've got.

• Home-grown: Since Ted Thompson took over as general manager in 2005, he has rarely traded away draft choices. All NFL general managers say they want to build through the draft, then many blink and give up picks. Thompson never blinks, holding his picks and trading for others. In Thompson's seven drafts, he has selected an average of nine players per draft, versus seven that the league hands each club. He has had 17 first- or second-round choices in that period, versus the 14 the league hands out. And the Packers scout the sixth and seventh rounds as intently as the first. Many Green Bay players were late choices, selected by a point in the draft where many teams were just winging it.

• Green Bay won the Brett Favre mess: Had the Packers not shown Favre the door, Rodgers would have departed. Offloading the franchise's most accomplished player was wrenching. Leaders make decisions for the future rather than the present -- if only those in Washington, D.C., thought this way -- and Green Bay made a smart decision for the future regarding Favre.

• The only NFL roster with five tight ends, as TMQ has noted before: Green Bay has five tight ends, and has won 18 straight games. Why don't other NFL teams notice this rudimentary fact? Multiple tight ends allow for multiple offensive sets that confuse defensive game plans. All contemporary defensive coordinators have some experience dealing with multiple wide receiver sets. Most don't have experience dealing with multiple tight end sets.

• Aaron Rodgers: Quarterback is the most important position in football, and Rodgers is football's best quarterback. Accuracy and decision-making are the key attributes of an NFL quarterback -- practically all of them have strong arms -- and Rodgers excels at both. He throws accurately while moving, creating roll-out opportunities. He runs, but only in an efficient manner, mainly when he sees a clear lane to the sidelines. On a third-and-5 against the Giants, Rodgers saw a clear lane to the sidelines and ran for the first down, then stepped out of bounds. This is the way Joe Montana used to run. When the quarterback consistently picks up first downs by efficient runs that don't expose him to hard hits, the offense prospers.

Plus Rodgers is handsome. Just as the football gods are propitiated by cheerleaders with sex appeal, the gods also smile on handsome quarterbacks. Rodgers, Tom Brady, Cam Newton, Drew Brees -- it may not be fair, but this seems to be the way it is.

Now Green Bay's tactical secrets:

• Sideline passing: Both Manning brothers excel at hitting receivers along the sidelines; for Rodgers, this has become his forte. Twice against the Giants, Rodgers hit Jordy Nelson with perfect strikes smack on the sideline for big gains. On the Packers' touchdown drive that made the score 35-27 Green Bay, both big plays were sideline receptions.

The deep sideline pass is the hardest throw in football, so only the best offenses feature this action. When a receiver is smack at the sideline, the quarterback knows there will be only one defender -- by definition, there's no defender on the sideline side. Working the sideline is a way to create one-on-one matchups. The throw must be perfect. If it is, the sideline route is the hardest for even the best cornerback to defend.

• Pass first, then rush: Victory can happen with a rush-first offense, as the Broncos are showing. But passing plays gain more yardage per attempt than rushing plays. Green Bay employs this simple insight to start most games pass-wacky; once the Packers have a lead, they switch to rushing to grind the clock. Passing early to build a margin, then running late after the opposition defense begins to tire, is an ideal formula. It's the Packers' formula.

• Canadian influence: Green Bay quarterbacks coach Tom Clements played quarterback for Ottawa, Hamilton, Saskatchewan and Winnipeg of the Canadian Football League. In the CFL, it's move the chains or lose. First downs matter more than deep strikes. The Packers' offense operates as though it assumes only three downs, like in Canada. Plus Joe Philbin has been the offensive coordinator in Green Bay for eight years. The Indianapolis Colts and New England Patriots offenses of the past decade were successful partly because of coaching stability.

• Funky defenses: Pittsburgh, Baltimore, the Ryan Brothers and others have been using oddball fronts with two or one defensive linemen, married to a zone rush. Green Bay employs this tactic too. In a zone rush -- a better term than zone blitz -- five to eight defenders are in a position to rush. Only four actually do, but the offense doesn't know which four will be coming. At least one defender who looked like a rusher before the snap drops into one of the slant lanes, since every quarterback's standard anti-blitz tactic is the quick slant.

Against the Giants, on one down Green Bay showed a conventional 3-4 front. Then two defenders walked up for what appeared to be a six-man blitz. At the snap only four rushed, with Matthews dropping into a slant lane that Eli Manning thought would be uncovered. The Giants had a receiver open deep, but because a rusher was in Eli's face -- after the choreography, Jersey/A had five to block four but lost track of one rusher who came toward Manning unopposed -- he never looked deep. Manning threw what he thought would be a safe quick out; Matthews intercepted the pass and returned it for a touchdown.

Lots of funky fronts and jumping around pre-snap cause Green Bay to surrender yardage -- statistically, the Packers' defense is not flashy. But these tactics also generate defensive touchdowns, against Jersey/A, against the Steelers in the Super Bowl and in other games. Nothing drops a 16-ton weight on your head like watching the opponent's defense score.

There are two other big factors:

• Mystique: The Packers have won four Super Bowls, 13 conference and/or league titles. Green Bay has the oldest consistent winner in football. The place is Titletown. Vince Lombardi is looking down. The Packers exist in a college-town atmosphere -- they are even the sole NFL franchise with college cheerleaders, not professional cheerleaders, on the sidelines. The aura around the Packers is unmatched by any other NFL organization.

• Bicycles: Packers players ride bicycles to the opening of camp, an annual summer ritual attended by thousands of children. Cheesy? Well, it is Wisconsin. Corny? Gets the season off on a fun note. And Packers faithful sure are having fun.

UnitedIrishman · 07-12-2011 8:10pm

McCarthy says Bishop will be challenged to get back on the field this week and Walden will start Sunday. Hawk is progressing.

kmart6 · 07-12-2011 8:45pm

Deleted User wrote: »

:eek:

I don't think I ever said I was "hoping and cheering" for the Packers to lose?

I think I said "defeat might not be such a bad thing". And then I said that for me it's an unwanted distraction when the focus must be the Superbowl. We have seen one team screw it up in the most spectacular fashion. I'd hate to think there was any possibility of history repeating itself.

Are you saying the Patriots?! Hard to say they screwed up after the miracle catch in that game!

WakeyTyke · 07-12-2011 9:32pm

So the Packers have placed Andrew Quarless on IR and have signed QB Graham Harrell from the practice squad

This begs the question - why do we need a 3rd QB at this stage of the season?

Could it be that once the Pack has secured no. 1 seeding Rodgers could be rested against the tough Bears (and possibly Lions) defences?

Or given the number of QB's going down injured maybe McCarthy was worried that Harrell may be signed to another club's active roster and he is too valuable an asset to lose!

SantryRed · 07-12-2011 9:36pm

That game against that scumbag Lion's D could be a worry for Rodgers to play him.

kmart6 · 07-12-2011 9:57pm

Well he only got sacked twice in the first game so nothing out of the ordinary! I'd imagine the officials will be watching the Lions for any little thing for the rest of the year so I'd say he'll be safe enough!

SnoopyD · 08-12-2011 1:33am

WakeyTyke wrote: »

This begs the question - why do we need a 3rd QB at this stage of the season?

Could it be that once the Pack has secured no. 1 seeding Rodgers could be rested against the tough Bears (and possibly Lions) defences?

Or given the number of QB's going down injured maybe McCarthy was worried that Harrell may be signed to another club's active roster and he is too valuable an asset to lose!

It's the exact same play as last year. Harrell was introduced into the roster for the final 2-3 games of the regular season (he may have come in a little ahead of schedule because of Rodgers concussion) and remained there for the rest of the way.

There was talk the Bills might pick him up but I doubt there was much to that.

There's absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about this whatsoever

08-12-2011 4:57pm

Arawn wrote: »

such as going undefeated? after all that would be history repeating itself

No no, by going undefeated through the season and then blowing it in the game that mattered most.

That was done once and once only.

And I suspect that if Pats fans were asked about it now, they would far rather to have shipped a few defeats along the way if it meant they went into the final with less hype and hysteria, rather than build up all that pressure and lose when it mattered most.

Of course they would rather have both. But for me the prospect of a perfect season pales into insignificance with the prospect of winning the Superbowl.

kmart6 wrote: »

Are you saying the Patriots?! Hard to say they screwed up after the miracle catch in that game!

They screwed up in the sense they lost.

It may have been close, it may have been an amazing catch, they may have been the very best losers ever.

But they lost.

me-skywalker · 09-12-2011 11:39am

Deleted User wrote: »

:eek:

I don't think I ever said I was "hoping and cheering" for the Packers to lose?

I think I said "defeat might not be such a bad thing". And then I said that for me it's an unwanted distraction when the focus must be the Superbowl. We have seen one team screw it up in the most spectacular fashion. I'd hate to think there was any possibility of history repeating itself.

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it.

Just concerned that the wheels come off as they focus on "making history" rather than "winning the Superbowl". It would be nice, but in the context of winning the Superbowl it really is only a little fluff on top as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather see them make history by establishing the greatest dynasty the game has seen, and for me that is not done by unbeaten seasons but by winning the Superbowl multiple times. Of course they are not necessarily exclusive, just that one worries about the focus.

For the record, I was pleased Tipp stopped Kilkenny's "drive for 5", I didn't like seeing Sampras and then Federer break all those records on the tennis courts, I hope Woods does not surpass Nicklaus, I don't like the way 147s in snooker and 9 dart finishes have become almost common, the Man Utd "treble" did not interest me and so on and so forth.

Your opinions are very cynical and negative. The best way to prepare for the SB is by winning every single game. Take each one at its own value and prepare and practice in the right way. Winning breeds confidence and confidence allows the players to achieve their potential because they are not psychologically barriered by fear; fear that if they try the difficult thing it might not work out, fear that they will make a mistake, fear they will lose. They are going to try the difficult things more often and they will excute tehm better with confidence and not have that restriction. Yes you learn from defeat and must not be complacent but that seems to be the jist of your point, but I've no fear of this team getting complacent.

09-12-2011 12:49pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

Your opinions are very cynical and negative.

Sheesh, the amount of fellows around here who weigh in with psychoanalysis when someone has an opinion with which they disagree! I'll laugh it off, especially from a person who consciously or unwittingly reads into my posts comments that I never made...what was that one again about wondering if I would cheer the Packers losing?!!

I really do not care that much about perfect seasons. I care very much about winning the Superbowl. The last time we saw enormous hype about the perfect season the wheels came off in spectacular fashion and that side ended up as one of the games most famous losers. That is all. You may think that gives an insight into my psyche, good for you.

me-skywalker · 09-12-2011 6:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Sheesh, the amount of fellows around here who weigh in with psychoanalysis when someone has an opinion with which they disagree! I'll laugh it off, especially from a person who consciously or unwittingly reads into my posts comments that I never made...what was that one again about wondering if I would cheer the Packers losing?!!

I really do not care that much about perfect seasons. I care very much about winning the Superbowl. The last time we saw enormous hype about the perfect season the wheels came off in spectacular fashion and that side ended up as one of the games most famous losers. That is all. You may think that gives an insight into my psyche, good for you.

Firstly I'm not sayign anythign on a personal level merely your post was negative and if you are goign to put words in my mouth that I'm putting wrds in your mouth quote the full post and not take it out of context please:

necessarily exclusive, just that one worries about the focus.

me-skywalker wrote: »

If the Packers went unbeaten thsi season and went half-way through next season unbeaten and considering how they ended last season on a streak, would you at some point next season be hoping and cheering for your own team to loose?

NOT

YOU ARE hoping and cheering for your own team to loose

[/QUOTE]For the record, I was pleased Tipp stopped Kilkenny's "drive for 5", I didn't like seeing Sampras and then Federer break all those records on the tennis courts, I hope Woods does not surpass Nicklaus, I don't like the way 147s in snooker and 9 dart finishes have become almost common, the Man Utd "treble" did not interest me and so on and so forth.[/QUOTE]

Peyton Manning · 12-12-2011 3:50am

PFT are reporting that Greg Jennings has torn his MCL.

spiralism · 12-12-2011 3:59am

Peyton Manning wrote: »

PFT are reporting that Greg Jennings has torn his MCL.

They reported it as a sprain, which is naturally a tear by definition. The grade tear determines the injury and layoff. Grade 1 or two could possibly have him back for the playoffs. Grade 3 is a complete tear and long term layoff

spank_inferno · 12-12-2011 10:18am

I really really hope its not too bad.
I know we have a lot of receiver weapons, but Jennings does a lot of work.
Think, all those 'straight up the middle' bullets from Rogers when all else seems covered...

Good win last night, against a deplorable Raiders team

I heard the Sky guys talking about Matt Flynn wanting a move away from GB?
He wasn't that impressive in the 1/4 game he got last night.

me-skywalker · 12-12-2011 5:14pm

Didnt see any of the game last night night but Rodgers throwing an INT and a QB rating of under 100 I'm assuming he was awful

Bad news about Jennings its gonna be a big miss; he's a big moment player with the experience and skill to matter even in a receiving set thats bulging with players Jennings is one of our most vital since he takes some coverage away from the others. Nelson will be getting plenty more ball now.

Can only comment on the stats for Flynn so won't say anything but what happened?

kmart6 · 12-12-2011 7:13pm

How do you mean?! What's wrong with Flynn's stats?!

Pherekydes · 13-12-2011 6:09am

According to packers.com, Jennings will be back for the play-offs.

Good news.

me-skywalker · 13-12-2011 11:52am

kmart6 wrote: »

How do you mean?! What's wrong with Flynn's stats?!

Ah just meant against the games against Raiders, not much to read into as he enterred the fray when it was irrelevant, I got to see the game yesterday evening. BTW his stats for the period he did play:

Pass: Att:2 Com:0
Rush: Car:3 Yrds: -2

If he's considering leaving is he gonna be missed hugely? Is this just a non-story

I don't want to read too much into his short and sparse appearances but I watched him over the years and thought he was a great backup to have, last season he done well against the Pats, over 250 yrds and 3TD's but not so well against the Lions 2 games we lost incidentally. Is he good enough to be a starter in the NFL? Is he happy enough to just sit behind Rodgers knowing he's not gonna have any chance in the next 10years of being a Packers starter? How is he generally rated by McCarthy, Clements and Rodgers?

EDIT: Actually who cares.. he could go we still have Rodgers, he could stay: we still have Rodgers.

cooker3 · 13-12-2011 1:13pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Sheesh, the amount of fellows around here who weigh in with psychoanalysis when someone has an opinion with which they disagree! I'll laugh it off, especially from a person who consciously or unwittingly reads into my posts comments that I never made...what was that one again about wondering if I would cheer the Packers losing?!!

I really do not care that much about perfect seasons. I care very much about winning the Superbowl. The last time we saw enormous hype about the perfect season the wheels came off in spectacular fashion and that side ended up as one of the games most famous losers. That is all. You may think that gives an insight into my psyche, good for you.

Are you suggesting the Patriots going 16-0 in some form contributed to losing the Superbowl?

Either way 16-0, 13-3 whatever it doesn't really affect losing the Superbowl. I remember Superbowl XXXII, it feels **** irrespective.

cooker3 · 13-12-2011 1:17pm

Good news that Jennings will be back for the post-season. I hope his injury, although I fear it might, doesn't make it less likely we go for 16-0.

Arawn · 13-12-2011 2:57pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

Ah just meant against the games against Raiders, not much to read into as he enterred the fray when it was irrelevant, I got to see the game yesterday evening. BTW his stats for the period he did play:

Pass: Att:2 Com:0
Rush: Car:3 Yrds: -2

If he's considering leaving is he gonna be missed hugely? Is this just a non-story

I don't want to read too much into his short and sparse appearances but I watched him over the years and thought he was a great backup to have, last season he done well against the Pats, over 250 yrds and 3TD's but not so well against the Lions 2 games we lost incidentally. Is he good enough to be a starter in the NFL? Is he happy enough to just sit behind Rodgers knowing he's not gonna have any chance in the next 10years of being a Packers starter? How is he generally rated by McCarthy, Clements and Rodgers?

EDIT: Actually who cares.. he could go we still have Rodgers, he could stay: we still have Rodgers.

Unlrss he gets hurt.

I'd much rather have a back up that kows the system rather than having to retrain someone

13-12-2011 4:34pm

cooker3 wrote: »

Are you suggesting the Patriots going 16-0 in some form contributed to losing the Superbowl?

We'll never know. They may have been complacent, they may not. One thing is for sure, they were overwhelming favourites and it would have been hard to keep complacency in check.

I'll say this much, the unbeaten issue added much to the glee of those who just don't like the Pats!

I would also much prefer to see them let players sit out games now, give Matthews, Rodgers, Nelson etc. or anyone carrying any tiny niggle or strain extended time on the sidelines, at least in divisional games where meetings have often produced bruising battles, rather than lose anyone through injury chasing 16-0.

kmart6 · 13-12-2011 7:45pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

Ah just meant against the games against Raiders, not much to read into as he enterred the fray when it was irrelevant, I got to see the game yesterday evening. BTW his stats for the period he did play:

Pass: Att:2 Com:0
Rush: Car:3 Yrds: -2

If he's considering leaving is he gonna be missed hugely? Is this just a non-story

I don't want to read too much into his short and sparse appearances but I watched him over the years and thought he was a great backup to have, last season he done well against the Pats, over 250 yrds and 3TD's but not so well against the Lions 2 games we lost incidentally. Is he good enough to be a starter in the NFL? Is he happy enough to just sit behind Rodgers knowing he's not gonna have any chance in the next 10years of being a Packers starter? How is he generally rated by McCarthy, Clements and Rodgers?

EDIT: Actually who cares.. he could go we still have Rodgers, he could stay: we still have Rodgers.

Had a feeling that was your point!

Your reading way too much into irrelevant stats!!

He came into the game when the Packers were miles ahead....if you look at the play by play they running the ball nearly every play and settling for FG's....game was won, they were running down the clock and being respectful towards the Raiders! As for the -2 on Rushing...kneel downs at the end!

cooker3 · 14-12-2011 4:05am

Deleted User wrote: »

We'll never know. They may have been complacent, they may not. One thing is for sure, they were overwhelming favourites and it would have been hard to keep complacency in check.

I'll say this much, the unbeaten issue added much to the glee of those who just don't like the Pats!

I would also much prefer to see them let players sit out games now, give Matthews, Rodgers, Nelson etc. or anyone carrying any tiny niggle or strain extended time on the sidelines, at least in divisional games where meetings have often produced bruising battles, rather than lose anyone through injury chasing 16-0.

And did this help the Colts win in 09? 72 dolphins coped. You can make this argument both ways.
Bottom line we don't have big enough sample size to say either way.

me-skywalker · 19-12-2011 3:35pm

2 notes from the game yesterday and last week: dropped passes and our LT.

Dropped passes % has spike in the last 3weeks whether we had injuries or not both sides of the ball. A factor to dropped passes is a drop in concentration could be complacency. Having a 'belief' that you have caught the ball while its on its way to you rather than making the catch then believing. Not concentrating at the final second, whereas before we've made sure it was caught then celebrated.

The LT position has been a problem area for us, Clifton was a miss previously, but Newhouse been a huge disappointment over the last few weeks also. How many of the sacks have come from his side? We had 4 in this game, 2 at clutch moments very frustrating.

In saying that I have to say well done to Chiefs they played a great game both sides of the ball and made us look ordinary.

Its the monkey off the back and we can push forward and focus on winning the big one. REPEAT!!!

spank_inferno · 19-12-2011 8:37pm

Agreed young skywalker.
That Newhouse fella seems a fat tub of weakness.
Much smaller men are able to outmuscle seemingly at will.

But the boss man watches the same footage we do, so I dont doubt good coverage in that position will be a priority come end of season.

Another point on last night, as mentioned on 5live, had the Chiefs red-zone performance been in anyway good, the points defecit could have been embarassing

fisgon · 26-12-2011 2:02pm

Packers' offense still looking slick, but I'd be a bit worried about their D. It seems you can now run on them at will. Kalil Bell had almost 100 yards by half time last night, and that's with McCown at QB when GB knew the Bears were going to run.

Thinking of the Saints in the Champ game, they now have a decent running game. Packers must be a bit concerned, though that would be one hell of an NFC champ decider.

WakeyTyke · 26-12-2011 6:47pm

The Defense has not only been a big disappointment this season it has also been an enigma.

Whilst the secondary has been generally poor defending the big plays and the pass-rush has been mediocre from the line-backers the D-line has at times held-up very well against the run but at other times it's been woeful.:(

Consistency has been totally lacking - why?!

McCarthy says we have been losing too many one-on-one match-ups - why?!

Certain players have not been able to attain and maintain the level that was expected of them - Neal, Zombo, Hawk, Burnett, Shields, all spring immediately to mind.

Is it too much to hope that the play-off's can create the necessary focus to produce the consistent performances that have been lacking all season?

spank_inferno · 26-12-2011 11:01pm

WakeyTyke wrote: »

Is it too much to hope that the play-off's can create the necessary focus to produce the consistent performances that have been lacking all season?

I hope and think that they can.

with the 2 final home games and then the playoffs being in Lambo, I hope it gives the D-fence oppertunity to improve on the training ground.

Interceptions have been impressive though, especially from Pepprah, so its not all bad.

I really don't fancy the Saints should that game come to pass.

me-skywalker · 29-12-2011 11:05am

WakeyTyke wrote: »

The Defense has not only been a big disappointment this season it has also been an enigma.

Whilst the secondary has been generally poor defending the big plays and the pass-rush has been mediocre from the line-backers the D-line has at times held-up very well against the run but at other times it's been woeful.:(

Consistency has been totally lacking - why?!

McCarthy says we have been losing too many one-on-one match-ups - why?!

Certain players have not been able to attain and maintain the level that was expected of them - Neal, Zombo, Hawk, Burnett, Shields, all spring immediately to mind.

Is it too much to hope that the play-off's can create the necessary focus to produce the consistent performances that have been lacking all season?

We were poor against the run last year too. The ultra high-pressure blitzs and LB's making patterns for dropping leave the 1-on-1 matchups as the main def against the run,;as we have players either rushing the oppositions pocket or creating positions for interceptions. As you said we need players to focus more and get tighter to help the run def when the pass isn't on, this also comes down to coaching and training and our overall defensive setup will need to be reflected. That said if we keep playing this way we can create turnovers agaisnt Bree's if that is the match we are looking at.

mossy2390 · 01-01-2012 11:19pm

Flynn was pretty awesome today, must admit i thought we were going to loose with so many big names out and Rodgers sitting it out, the right decision to make of course gotta look at the big picture.

Flynn really stepped up tho and glad we didn't resort to the running game.

so who do you think is going to sign Flynn as starter next season?

spank_inferno · 01-01-2012 11:35pm

mossy2390 wrote: »

Flynn was pretty awesome today, must admit i thought we were going to loose with so many big names out and Rodgers sitting it out, the right decision to make of course gotta look at the big picture.

Flynn really stepped up tho and glad we didn't resort to the running game.

so who do you think is going to sign Flynn as starter next season?

I dare say a lot of teams will be interested.

Denver is a competent team crying out for someone who can throw a ball.
Tampa may have a big clear out in the off-season, so thats a possibility.

Peyton Manning · 01-01-2012 11:44pm

Ye allowed the most passing yards in regular season NFL history, breaking our own record we set earlier today.

Thank God for Rodgers and Brady, eh?

mossy2390 · 02-01-2012 12:52am

spank_inferno wrote: »

I dare say a lot of teams will be interested.

Denver is a competent team crying out for someone who can throw a ball.
Tampa may have a big clear out in the off-season, so thats a possibility.

suppose it will just go down to who has the most money/Flynn's personal preference.

Peyton Manning wrote: »

Ye allowed the most passing yards in regular season NFL history, breaking our own record we set earlier today.

Thank God for Rodgers and Brady, eh?

thankfully there defense in the redzone is pretty good and they are leading i interceptions so that offsets the yards.

then there is the obvious Rodgers/offense awesomeness

spank_inferno · 02-01-2012 11:22am

Peyton Manning wrote: »

Ye allowed the most passing yards in regular season NFL history

And this is why I fear the NFC championship will go to the Saints this year.

cosatron · 02-01-2012 11:41am

i wouldn't fear the saints in green bay for the simple reason that i don't think the saints will be able for the climate. looking at there schedule, they had 11 dome games, played in green bay in september, and played the jags, panthers, bucs, and titans in outdoor games in fairly good conditions. but one team i do fear are the giants. good defence and eli is dangerous if his in the mood.

spiralism · 02-01-2012 3:08pm

cosatron wrote: »

i wouldn't fear the saints in green bay for the simple reason that i don't think the saints will be able for the climate. looking at there schedule, they had 11 dome games, played in green bay in september, and played the jags, panthers, bucs, and titans in outdoor games in fairly good conditions. but one team i do fear are the giants. good defence and eli is dangerous if his in the mood.

Beware a week 13 rematch in the divisional, they'll likely handle the Falcons easily enough, are well able for ye, want revenge from earlier this year and can handle the cold weather and bad conditions. Giants are a nightmare of a team to face in the playoffs- strong pass rush, good, well organised defence and a powerful offence with a clutch QB having his best season yet.

me-skywalker · 03-01-2012 12:33pm

I do not want the Giants!

Will take the Falcons or Lions on again.

Clifton should be starting at tackle for his experience so hopefully can get some better pass protection, whoever we face!

Our defence is a microcosm of what makes the NFL such a great sport to watch. One of the best offense in years offset by one of the worst defense in years.

Pherekydes · 03-01-2012 6:22pm

me-skywalker wrote: »

Our defence is a microcosm of what makes the NFL such a great sport to watch. One of the best offense in years offset by one of the worst defense in years.

I don't think the D is as bad as people make out. Sure they've given up the most yards in history, but the real measures of a D are points allowed and turnovers, and on those points they are more than adequate. 31 interceptions? I mean come on, guys.

Thirty-bleeding-one.

I'd prefer the Falcons. The Giants have done it all, even on the road, while the Lions will fancy having a second shot so soon.

me-skywalker · 05-01-2012 4:30pm

Great news, Jennings is back and ready to play, no nags or niggles and says he's in great start of season shape.

Also, Starks is looking to get over his knee and ankle injuries to make a big impact. Thankfully we earned that week rest.

Greg Jennings is absolutely certain he will play in the playoffs. A “huge day” on Wednesday confirmed it for him.

“Whoever we’re playing, I’m on the field,” Jennings said after practice, speaking to reporters for the first time since injuring his knee more than three weeks ago. “No doubt.”

Jennings’ confidence lies in the rehab plan he has gone through with the training staff, which has proceeded as well as he could have expected. He said the target all along was to get the knee in shape for the regular-season finale against Detroit, even though he presumably wouldn’t play if nothing was at stake for the team.

That would allow the bye before the first playoff game to provide a two-week “insurance policy” to clear some mental hurdles, an important consideration for a player who had missed consecutive games only once in his career, and not since Weeks 1 and 2 of the 2007 season. Jennings missed the last three games of this regular season, equaling the total number of games he had missed due to injury in his first five years in the league.

“If I had to play last week, I would have played last week,” Jennings said. “But the more time you get, you try to take advantage of it.”

Jennings was back at practice on Wednesday, the first of the Packers’ two workouts this week. He ran some routes “on air” last week, and on Wednesday he got involved in the competitive drills against defenders. He called it a “huge day.”

“Just to know that I can react and respond to a guy up in my face and still be able to beat the jam, and kick it in another gear when the ball is in the air,” he said. “All that took place today.”

As for that extra gear, Jennings has regularly found it in the playoffs. In seven career postseason games, he has topped 100 yards three times and caught five touchdown passes.

Entering the playoffs with a healed and rested body could mean a big postseason is in store. Jennings had 949 receiving yards and nine touchdowns in 13 regular-season games before being sidelined.

“I was telling the guys it’s really been a blessing in disguise, because late in the season, that’s when the bumps and bruises start to nag and just stay, and you have to fight through everything,” Jennings said. “For myself, I’m as fresh as I’ve been at the end of the season.”

He apparently showed that on the practice field.

“He looked awesome,” said tight end Jermichael Finley, who has come back from a couple of knee injuries already in his young career. “The thing is … he’s got to take that first hit and pop up. It’s all a mind thing, and I think Greg is a strong enough person to handle that. I think he’s going to come back strong.”

Another offensive weapon looking to do the same is running back James Starks, who missed three of the last four regular-season games with ankle and knee injuries.

Starks has not been cleared to practice, yet, but was continuing his rehab. He, along with center Scott Wells and inside linebacker D.J. Smith, did not practice on Wednesday. Head Coach Mike McCarthy declined to comment on any absences or injuries until the next official injury report comes out next week.

Not fully healthy since the Tampa Bay game in Week 11, Starks admitted the second half of the season has been frustrating after he topped 500 rushing yards through the first nine games. But he understands that “this is what counts,” meaning the playoffs, and his position demands that he be at full strength and speed to be successful.

“As a running back in this league, you get hit all the time and you have to make a cut on a dime and make people miss,” Starks said. “All the good running backs in this league that break tackles and all that, you need to be healthy to be productive.”

spank_inferno · 09-01-2012 10:19am

Fantastic to have our best receiver back for the Giants game!

looking forward to next week, I'm confident we'll do the business.

Arawn · 09-01-2012 10:44am

We will not lose to the giants. My mate will have a field day if her team beat us. Also I may of been so confident about thrashing them I joked we'd let flynn do the business for us, hopefully that smart comment won't bite me in the ass!

WakeyTyke · 09-01-2012 10:53am

spank_inferno wrote: »

Fantastic to have our best receiver back for the Giants game!

looking forward to next week, I'm confident we'll do the business.

After seeing how impressive the G-men were against the Falcons we are going to need a World Champions performance.

To have a fit Jennings, Nelson and Finley is essential with a rock-solid O-line protecting Rodgers. To win we will also need the defense to somehow pressure Manning (probably our biggest challenge!) and the secondary to make some big plays.

Not an a lot to ask!

At least we can rest assured that Lambeau will be as inhospitable as ever:D

cosatron · 09-01-2012 11:26am

to be honest lads, i think we should win, reasons being, the falcons were muck yesterday, matty ice sat in the pocket when the pressure came, whereas rodgers will extend the play with his legs, jennings and starks should be back, eli hasn't faced ballhawks like woodson and williams since we last played them in metlife and won, bj and clay are due big games and aj hawk is improving since his injury, and plus jennings tweeted that revenge is on there mind for 2007 and so far in the play offs, all home teams have won.

spank_inferno · 09-01-2012 11:36am

Agree with that.

I'd also add that a huge performance from Marshall Newhouse at left tackle is needed (if he plays). despite his massive size, he seems to out muscled and Rogers is put under far more pressure than he should be.

If the pocket holds, Rogers will fire bullets & the Giants have little chance.

kmart6 · 10-01-2012 2:45am

Devastating news for Joe Philbin!

ProFootballTalk wrote:

Jason Wilde of ESPN Wisconsin reported a short time ago that the Packers players have been told that the body of Michael Philbin, son of offensive coordinator Joe Philbin, has been identified. The younger Philbin had been reported missing after last being heard from at 2 a.m. on Sunday and authorities were searching around Oshkosh in hopes of finding him. A body was recovered earlier Monday in Oshkosh.

Our thoughts go out to the Philbin family and the larger Packer family at this time.

Something like this puts football in perspective as only a game!

Really could have an effect on the Packers!

WakeyTyke · 10-01-2012 11:13am

Very sad news. Condolences to the Phillbin family.

The Packer organisation is very much a family and coach McCarthy is very much a family-man so I am sure they are all giving Joe and his family great support.

The Packers have shown they are a team that thrives on adversity and I expect that as a result of this tragedy the team will go out on Sunday and play the game of their lives for Joe.

bruschi · 10-01-2012 12:07pm

Sad news alright, and an awful way to lose ones life, being trapped under ice of the river if indeed the full reports are true. The whole case is a bit odd though, and will be hard for the family to get over, as its not yet known (from any reports I have seen to date) how he came to be in the river. He was convicted of sexual assault a couple of years ago and served some jail time, so some of the media/opinions are in over drive right now. But what he did or didnt do, its a loss of a son/brother for a family in tragic circumstances.

WakeyTyke · 11-01-2012 11:03pm

Very moving watching Mike McCarthy trying to keep his emotions in check when talking about Joe Philbin's loss in the Wednesday media conference.

My admiration of the qualities McCarthy brings to his role continue to grow. I really feel that he is going to have a long and successful dynasty in charge of the Packers.

Green Bay Packers Thread

Comments