14
   

Cheesehead Central

Forums: Packers, Sports, Green Bay, Football, Cheesehead
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 11:00 am
@Gargamel,
How could I not disagree? It is a false dilemma. Aaron Rodgers wouldn't have been a free agent until 2010, anyway, and a few million bucks would have gone a long way towards an apology for the delay. What was he going to do about it, retire? Seriously; I doubt he'd have had trouble understanding that the team was going to start last year's runner up for MVP, the most prolific Quarterback in the history of the game, the guy who's help them become the winningest team in football throughout his tenure of a decade and a half, without ever missing a start.

There is no compelling reason this transition couldn't have been put off another year and in the process; giving the Packers their best shot at winning this year.
Region Philbis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 11:29 am
@OCCOM BILL,
NFC north is very weak this year -- green bay has as good a shot as anyone at taking the division...
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 11:47 am
@Region Philbis,
True... but this weakness is all the more reason this talented Packer team should be out performing the less talented Jets, who are in a much better division.
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 08:01 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Quote:
True... but this weakness is all the more reason this talented Packer team should be out performing the less talented Jets, who are in a much better division.


There is talent on that team, Bill, but only in certain spots. No team in the NFC North can seriously be considered an elite team. There are glaring weaknesses on all of them. Let's eliminate Detroit from the conversation and consider which of the other three in the division has the most realistic chance to make the playoffs. I say it will boil down to a battle between Chicago and Minnesota to win the division and I foresee no wildcard emerging.

Thoughts?
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 08:51 pm
@gustavratzenhofer,
That is about what I'd expect you to say, Gus. I think they have a good shot at the division. The team went 13 and 3 last year. Our defense is opportunistic (lead-leading 16 interceptions and 6 Touchdowns). Offense features 2 solid running backs, very talented receivers, and one big question mark. If Rodgers steps it up and learns to get rid of the ball; they have an excellent shot at the playoffs and possibly more.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Nov, 2008 08:54 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
ya mighta had me till the "possibly more"...

Homer says ~


Doh!~
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 12:43 am
@Rockhead,
You think "possibly more" is not possible? Which team do you think can't be beaten by the Packers on "any given Sunday"? (The only undefeated team in football needed more than 4 quarters to beat the Packers just last week.)
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 05:32 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:
. Our defense is opportunistic (lead-leading 16 interceptions and 6 Touchdowns).


Admittedly you do have an excellent pass defense, Bill, but if you continue to let teams run through you at their leisure you will find your playoff dreams disappear like mist in the morning light.

Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 05:51 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
any given sunday is one thing.

having the leadership (QB), and run defense to mount a playoff run is another.

ain't gonna happen...
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 11 Nov, 2008 05:59 pm
@gustavratzenhofer,
Quite true, guys. Nick Barnett left a mighty big hole in our run defense... and it will certainly need to be patched. Alternately, Mike McCarthy will have to channel his inner Mike Martz AND Rogers would have to rise to the occasion. Anyway you look at it, it's a long row to hoe. On the other hand; no team looks terribly dominant right now.
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 06:50 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Did the Bears think they had a bye week, or what?
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 08:38 pm
@patiodog,
patiodog wrote:
Did the Bears think they had a bye week, or what?
The Bears looked as bad as I can ever hope to see the Bears look. A truly enjoyable game. Life's pretty easy when you're averaging over 5 yards a carry and I finally saw the play action roll out I've been screaming for (and it looked like it would work on every other down if they'd use it more)! Great day!

And how about Jett Favre taking it to New England? (Cassel threw for 400 and ran for like 60 more, so you can't say NE was suffering at QB.)
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:33 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Makes you wonder if Brady might be a system quarterback.

Or maybe NE just knows how to pick 'em and coach 'em.
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Nov, 2008 09:59 pm
@patiodog,
patiodog wrote:

Makes you wonder if Brady might be a system quarterback.

Or maybe NE just knows how to pick 'em and coach 'em.
Or have gotten better at covering up their cheating? Razz
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Nov, 2008 03:16 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Brett Favre's Jets just put a spanking on the formerly undefeated Titans, moving up to 8 and 3. I'm thinking the Jets will soon be putting up a statue in gratitude... of Ted Thompson (the friggin idiot...)
Gargamel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 09:19 am
@OCCOM BILL,
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Brett Favre's Jets just put a spanking on the formerly undefeated Titans, moving up to 8 and 3. I'm thinking the Jets will soon be putting up a statue in gratitude... of Ted Thompson (the friggin idiot...)


Bret Favre's 2008 QB rating: 94.1

Aaron Rodgers' 2008 QB rating: 94.5
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 01:32 pm
@Gargamel,
Gargamel wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Brett Favre's Jets just put a spanking on the formerly undefeated Titans, moving up to 8 and 3. I'm thinking the Jets will soon be putting up a statue in gratitude... of Ted Thompson (the friggin idiot...)


Bret Favre's 2008 QB rating: 94.1

Aaron Rodgers' 2008 QB rating: 94.5
Correct. Aaron gets to play with the Packers (13-3 last year), while Favre has to play with the Jets (4-12 last year). It truly is remarkable he's able to keep it so tight despite this tremendous disadvantage, isn't it?
Gargamel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 01:39 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
I agree that Favre makes the Jets better this year. But I believe Rodgers' would have made the Jets better as well.

I do not believe the Packers would have a better record with Favre, which is your argument, correct? And how exactly does that work?

The QB is the main source of Green Bay's woes this year?
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 02:42 pm
@Gargamel,
Good Quarterback Not Equal Best Quarterback in history. Do the math:
Jetts= .25 (4-12) * Brett = 2.66 (8-3)= 10 times better winning percentage.
Packers=4.33 (13-3) * Aaron = 1 (5-5)= 4 times worse winning percentage.
You don't really think the Jets have a better offense than the Packers (not including QB's) do you? Rodgers is spoiled rotten with talent around him, and he's doing well, but still underperforming when compared to the single greatest QB of all time.
Gargamel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Nov, 2008 03:29 pm
@OCCOM BILL,
Could the Jets' improved percentage have something to do with how shitty Chad Pennington was last year? If we're going to get all empirical let's at least be fair.

More importantly, would the Pack have a better record with a more aggressive, Favre-oriented passing game?

My argument here is that even with Favre the Packers would be .500.
 

Related Topics

Gargamel, will the Vikings beat the Pack? - Question by gustavratzenhofer
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Cheesehead Central
  3. » Page 35
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 08:33:48
▲ ▼