Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
8 Pages«<5678>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline play2win  
#91 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:30:26 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
Based on Scoring Defense, in the 2013 Super Bowl, the #12 team beat the #2 team. Based on yardage, the #17 team beat the #3. Clearly, points tell a much different story...

In that same year, the Seahawks were the #1 Scoring Defense. #2 was the 49ers. #3 was the Bears. Wait. What? But the Bears didn't even make the playoffs. Neither did the #6 or #7 Scoring D. How can that be when the most important thing is defense?

In 2012, 10 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses made the playoffs. The only 2 that didn't were the Saints and Giants. Those 2 teams had won 2 of the previous 3 Super Bowls. So essentially 100% of the top Scoring offenses in 2012 were relevant.

In 2013, 9 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses and Scoring Defenses were in the playoffs. Doesn't appear that Defense is the more important side.

I bet the Ravens wish they knew that you didn't think Flacco was a franchise QB before they gave him that huge contract. Bet they'll check with you next time.

Knowledgeable football people would consider Roethlisburger, Manning and Flacco to be franchise QB's. All they've done is win 5 of the last 9 Super Bowls. The fact that you don't isn't surprising.

The trend in the NFL for the last 20 years has been to encourage offense. To deny that is ridiculous. To state that Defense is more important than Offense is ludicrous.




So, you missed the last Super Bowl? Laughing Laughing Laughing

QCHuskerFan, you made some good points. Rule changes have greatly favored the O side of the ball over the last 5 years. However, what SEA did last season cannot be denied. They literally went up and popped Peyton Manning in the face, and he had a prolific offense.

Offline QCHuskerFan  
#92 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 8:02:42 AM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 85
Applause Received: 149

There are 10 Frat brothers. The first 9 marry blondes. The 10th marries a brunette. Is the trend to marry brunettes?

I am not arguing that what Seattle did was not impressive. But I haven't seen enough to think that is the new look of the NFL. Cynic that I am, I don't think the NFL will allow Defense to become dominant. There are too many casual fans that want to see exciting games like 42-38.

Among the 24 highest rated TV games this year, 9 involved the high scoring Broncos. 1 involved the Seahawks. 20 of the 48 teams in the most watched regular season games were ranked in the top 5 Scoring offenses. Only 10 of the 48 appeared in the top 6 Scoring Defenses. You can argue about the 'Manning' effect or Denver tradition vs Seattle. Or whatever you want. You can't deny that the NFL looks at ratings. You can't deny that Manning and the Broncos bring more $ to the NFL.

Anything can happen on any given day. Remember Thanksgiving Day? Based on that Lions game, the Lions were Super Bowl contenders and the Packers wouldn't win another game all year. Packers went 3-1 and the Lions 0-4. The Super Bowl was one game. Don't instantly mistake it for a trend.
thanks Post received 3 applause.
buckeyepackfan on 2/23/2014(UTC), musccy on 2/23/2014(UTC), mi_keys on 2/23/2014(UTC)
Offline musccy  
#93 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 9:20:54 AM(UTC)
musccy

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 5/7/2009(UTC)
Location: Pennsylvania

Applause Given: 242
Applause Received: 232

Originally Posted by: play2win Go to Quoted Post


The bigger point attached to this is imagining if Ted had actually traded up into those prime spots to take those players, and how differently we may have fared. We could have been a much more balanced team, and could have been more of a true contender last season and the season before.


...and we don't know what it would have taken to trade up or if in the case of KC/CAR that they were willing trade partners.

Using your logic that higher is better, Carolina and KC should have traded up higher than 9 and 11 to get better players, they didn't, they sat, and they got pro bowlers.

The Patriots have had 4 top 20 picks since 2000 and have done just fine drafting later.

Quote:

Don't you think Ted maybe should have known better? It is his job to know. How is this shotgun thing working, adding all those picks? Right now, I would say it is not working. I would rather we added (at least) one true impact player per year on D with a more aggressive approach. Yeah, take some chances, trade away a bit to move up and get the goods.


There are 31 other teams trying to pick the same players the Packers are. I'm Beating Deadhorse ...with what I've said before. Other teams have plenty of failed draft picks too. That doesn't prove that being "more aggressive" is successful, though.
Offline play2win  
#94 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:31:46 AM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Hey, look, I'm a Ted Thompson fan. I really am grateful to have a guy like him as our GM. But, to ignore the method he has stuck to over the last however many years, since 2006, I'd have to say take a look at those last 3 drafts and tell me you wouldn't wish we had better talent, better results. He is the guy making the picks. You say there are 31 other teams trying to pick the same players the Packers are. Maybe not. Sure, there are all kinds of failed picks, and Ted is certainly entitled to his own. No GM is perfect, nor am I saying he should be. All I'm saying is I wish he would land some better players than he has recently. Maybe change up his approach to loading his team a bit.

Add to this, every GM tries to get 4 starters out of every draft. Ted has done alright there, but it also stops right there too with his rigid stance of FA. So, he actually had to hit on a higher percentage of drafted players with that philosophy, and his staff has to develop all of those players. I'm seeing some whiffs in both departments.

I know trades require trading partners and I would have assumed you knew that too. It was a very simple hypothetical. Of course we would have had to give something up, and who knows how much?

I think Ted needs to up his game. And, if John Schneider and John Dorsey were that good at their jobs, it calls into question how good Ted really is, and whether or not he needs more help in talent evaluation. We've had 10 pretty big duds drafted to our D over the last 3 years, maybe more, maybe a little less. But, we need him on top of his game if we are going to get better.

I'm hopeful some of these players like Worthy, Perry and House turn it around, and that Hayward and Barrington and Palmer can contribute. We need impact players. Game changers. I just want him to go and get them, by whatever means he has at his disposal. He has limited himself in this regard in the past, and that cannot be denied, and his team has suffered some for it. Time to change it up. Why not? We're going to get worse? He's been pretty good at being frugal with our cap, but maybe that could change here in this window of opportunity we have with Aaron Rodgers on top of his game.

I don't want us to win the cap award. I want us to win the Lombardi Trophy. It could take a lot for us to do that.
Offline musccy  
#95 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 11:58:59 AM(UTC)
musccy

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 5/7/2009(UTC)
Location: Pennsylvania

Applause Given: 242
Applause Received: 232

I feel you have unrealistic expectation. No team is going to sustain success every year and hit a homerun with every pick and draft. Are Ted's drafts disproportionately bad? As a whole he has drafted well since he has been here, 2011 being the exception and appears to be one of his worst draft classes. He's had success through all rounds, including Collins, Sitton, Lacy, Lang, Hayward, Shields, Boykin, Cobb, and Nelson in later rounds, so I don't see the need to make a bold trade up. He has shown the willingness to selectively move up and back, and has had success doing both. He has taken gambles on guys with injury histories (Justin Harrell, Eddy Lacy) and succeeded and failed with both approaches.

Since he and Mike M have been here the Packers have been one of the most consistently strong teams in the NFL, so I don't care what John Schneider or Dorsey did because as a whole Ted's conservative yet stable approach has proven successful as well, and quite frankly what Schneider does isn't dramatically different. Much of his success has been through good pick ups and depth from beyond the first round, in addition to some FA pickups this offseason facilitated by an incredibly cheap contract at the most crucial position on the team, a luxury the Packers don't have.

Offline mi_keys  
#96 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 12:38:13 PM(UTC)
mi_keys

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 218
Applause Received: 352

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
Based on Scoring Defense, in the 2013 Super Bowl, the #12 team beat the #2 team. Based on yardage, the #17 team beat the #3. Clearly, points tell a much different story...


Focusing on one team in one season misses the point. When you look at points versus yards over the long haul, points are far more indicative of the success of a team, for both offense and defense. How is that difficult to grasp?



Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
In that same year, the Seahawks were the #1 Scoring Defense. #2 was the 49ers. #3 was the Bears. Wait. What? But the Bears didn't even make the playoffs. Neither did the #6 or #7 Scoring D. How can that be when the most important thing is defense?


Where did I say it was the end all be all? Of course you can go through and find exceptions. For instance, this past season the 2nd and 5th scoring offenses missed the playoffs.

Also, the Bears were 10-6 that season. It wasn't like they were a shit football club (they still suck, though).



Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
In 2012, 10 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses made the playoffs. The only 2 that didn't were the Saints and Giants. Those 2 teams had won 2 of the previous 3 Super Bowls. So essentially 100% of the top Scoring offenses in 2012 were relevant.


The Ravens were 3rd in scoring defense four consecutive years leading up to the year they won the Super Bowl from 2008 through 2011. Using your own logic, does that nullify your first point about the Ravens defense not being so highly ranked but still winning the Super Bowl XVLII?


Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
In 2013, 9 of the top 12 Scoring Offenses and Scoring Defenses were in the playoffs. Doesn't appear that Defense is the more important side.


The defenses that missed were #7, #8 and #12 scoring defenses. #7 was Arizona who finished 10-6. The offenses were the #2, #5 and #13 (so 10 of 12 scoring offenses actually made it. Of course the Packers had the #8 scoring offense and made the playoffs at 8-7-1).

Then again, here we are talking about two years, which you yourself have criticized play2win doing with his point on this past Super Bowl. If the purpose is to point out that his one point (or any one person's for that matter) can easily be an exception, that is fair and I'd agree.

Also, I'm personally more interested in what the criteria are for winning the Super Bowl since that is the ultimate goal, not just making the playoffs.


Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
I bet the Ravens wish they knew that you didn't think Flacco was a franchise QB before they gave him that huge contract. Bet they'll check with you next time.


Laughing I bet they did too, what with his whopping 73.1 QB Rating (ranked 32nd in the NFL this past year) on the back of 19 TDs to 23 INTs this past season. He has a career rating of 83.7 and has broken 90 once. He clearly deserves to be paid basically the same amount as Rodgers.


Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
Knowledgeable football people would consider Roethlisburger, Manning and Flacco to be franchise QB's. All they've done is win 5 of the last 9 Super Bowls. The fact that you don't isn't surprising.


See point above for comments on Flacco.

Manning had a 69.4 QB Rating this past season (good for 35th). He has a career 81.2 QB Rating.

Among active quarterbacks with enough attempts to qualify, Flacco is 16th in passer rating and Eli is 21st. They are average. No one would think otherwise if not for the rings (also, in Eli's case, his last name). The argument for quarterbacks being good based on the rings they've won should've died when that argument had to be reconciled with the following score line:

Trent Dilfer: 1
Dan Marino: 0

Roethlisberger is 7th on the active passer rating list. I'm harsh on Big Ben because I get so sick of of media overrating quarterbacks for the success of the team. As I said before, he is good but he is not in that elite tier of quarterbacks. He is in a tier where about a third of the league has a quarterback playing around his level or better.


Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
The trend in the NFL for the last 20 years has been to encourage offense. To deny that is ridiculous. To state that Defense is more important than Offense is ludicrous.



I haven't denied the rules have been skewed towards the offense. But you are confusing the league forcing higher score lines with the importance of an offense or defense. The rule changes could make defenses obsolete or they could simply change the standard for what quantifies a good defense (and offense).

Today, holding a team to 14 to 15 points a game is completely and utterly dominant. 20 years ago it would have been only pretty good. Likewise, scoring 28 points a game today would be pretty good, whereas 20 years ago it would have typically lead the league.

I would even contend that the shift in rules could eventually heighten the importance of a defense. If something is relatively easy, lots of individuals or groups are going to look good. By skewing the rules so grossly in favor of the offense, you could end up in a situation whereby only a select few defenses can cope with the challenge; and those defenses could really set themselves apart from the rest.

All that said, and apologies to everyone for the long post, here are some of the breakdowns on historical defensive and offensive scoring ranks for the Super Bowl champions:

I pulled the historical data and all time there have been 14 #1 scoring defenses that went on to win a Super Bowl and 10 #1 scoring offenses. The median rank for a defensive scoring rank all time is 3 compared to 4.5 for offensive scoring rank.

Over the past 20 years (since you referenced 20 years) there have been 6 #1 defenses and 4 #1 offenses. The median defensive rank was 3 and the median offensive rank was 7.

Over the past 10 years there have been 2 #1 scoring defenses and 5 top 3 scoring defenses. In that time frame there has been 1 #1 scoring offense and 2 top 3 scoring offenses. The median rank has was 7.5 for defense and 9 for offense.

We've seen more parity of late with some really shitty (by regular season ranking standards) offenses and defenses going on to win Super Bowls. That said, historically the defense has been the higher rank and arguably the more important. That statistical view holds true for the most recent 20 and 10 year time periods. One day that could change but until I see the evidence that it has, I'm going to continue with the view that the defense is the more important side of the ball.


Sources:
pro-football-reference (for scoring ranks and active qb rating leaders)
nfl.com (for individual qb statistics)
Born and bred a cheesehead
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 2/24/2014(UTC)
Online nerdmann  
#97 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 12:42:26 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,628
Applause Received: 652

When your team is stocked with talent, it's much harder to find new starters and new guys who can make your team. So yeah, Ted hasn't gotten as many of late. But they're generally still in the league, just not good enough for OUR team.

Let's get healthy, and hopefully stay that way.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline mi_keys  
#98 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 12:42:47 PM(UTC)
mi_keys

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 218
Applause Received: 352

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
There are 10 Frat brothers. The first 9 marry blondes. The 10th marries a brunette. Is the trend to marry brunettes?

I am not arguing that what Seattle did was not impressive. But I haven't seen enough to think that is the new look of the NFL. Cynic that I am, I don't think the NFL will allow Defense to become dominant. There are too many casual fans that want to see exciting games like 42-38.

Among the 24 highest rated TV games this year, 9 involved the high scoring Broncos. 1 involved the Seahawks. 20 of the 48 teams in the most watched regular season games were ranked in the top 5 Scoring offenses. Only 10 of the 48 appeared in the top 6 Scoring Defenses. You can argue about the 'Manning' effect or Denver tradition vs Seattle. Or whatever you want. You can't deny that the NFL looks at ratings. You can't deny that Manning and the Broncos bring more $ to the NFL.

Anything can happen on any given day. Remember Thanksgiving Day? Based on that Lions game, the Lions were Super Bowl contenders and the Packers wouldn't win another game all year. Packers went 3-1 and the Lions 0-4. The Super Bowl was one game. Don't instantly mistake it for a trend.


And for what it's worth I'm applauding this because: (a) I appreciate the statistics on viewership, which I find interesting; and (b) everyone is guilty at some point or another of focusing on one data point and running with it as a trend (some grossly more so than others).

I don't necessarily agree with the premise that the rule shift towards more points will eliminate the importance of an elite defense per my last post; but the above is interesting nonetheless.
Born and bred a cheesehead
Offline sschind  
#99 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 1:41:43 PM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 117
Applause Received: 422

People keep saying look at what the Redskins gave up to get RGIII or the Falcons to get Jones but I don't think that is what Play2win is talking about, moving up into the top 10.

lets say the Packers are sitting there at #23 and they are agonizing over 2 players (A and B) and its really a toss up who they want. Ted Thompson really thinks both guys can be a big help to the team but obviously they will only get 1 of them so they go with player A. Then at #29 or #30 player B is still there. What would Ted Thompson have to give up out of this years draft to move up? 3 picks (2nd, 3rd, 5th?) 4 picks? What? I don't know but what if he says I'll give you next years #1 and this years #3 and a #6. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all and I think that is more in line of what p2w is talking about. Yes we are giving up a #1 next year but we are getting that #1 this year so we are not giving up a first round pick. I mean we are but we are getting it back.


No player is a guarantee but no GM takes a player they think will be a bust either. If there are players that a GM thinks can make a big contribution (and that is really what the draft is all about, picking guys the GM thinks will help) what difference does it make if we draft that guy this year by using next years pick or waiting until next year to draft that same guy but its a different guy. Either way we are drafting a guy that the GM really thinks can help. That and getting him a year earlier can't hurt either.

Of course some people will say what if we trade away our #1 next year and it ends up being the #25 pick and at #25 the best LB prospect in 20 years is still available. We would miss out on him. Well, to that I say 2 things. First, tough shit, its the chance you take when you take chances and second, trade our 2015 #1 pick and something else and go the hell up and get him.

Keep in mind that those picks I suggested were simply for illustrative purposes. I know there is a pick value guide out there somewhere that says what each pick is worth on a point scale and to figure out what low round picks the #29 overall pick is worth you just add the numbers of the other picks. My suggestions might be way high or way low I don't know but you get the idea.

I respect your right to have your opinion but that doesn't mean I agree with it or respect you for having it.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win on 2/23/2014(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#100 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 3:07:23 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

Originally Posted by: sschind Go to Quoted Post
People keep saying look at what the Redskins gave up to get RGIII or the Falcons to get Jones but I don't think that is what Play2win is talking about, moving up into the top 10.

lets say the Packers are sitting there at #23 and they are agonizing over 2 players (A and B) and its really a toss up who they want. Ted Thompson really thinks both guys can be a big help to the team but obviously they will only get 1 of them so they go with player A. Then at #29 or #30 player B is still there. What would Ted Thompson have to give up out of this years draft to move up? 3 picks (2nd, 3rd, 5th?) 4 picks? What? I don't know but what if he says I'll give you next years #1 and this years #3 and a #6. I wouldn't have a problem with that at all and I think that is more in line of what p2w is talking about. Yes we are giving up a #1 next year but we are getting that #1 this year so we are not giving up a first round pick. I mean we are but we are getting it back.


No player is a guarantee but no GM takes a player they think will be a bust either. If there are players that a GM thinks can make a big contribution (and that is really what the draft is all about, picking guys the GM thinks will help) what difference does it make if we draft that guy this year by using next years pick or waiting until next year to draft that same guy but its a different guy. Either way we are drafting a guy that the GM really thinks can help. That and getting him a year earlier can't hurt either.

Of course some people will say what if we trade away our #1 next year and it ends up being the #25 pick and at #25 the best LB prospect in 20 years is still available. We would miss out on him. Well, to that I say 2 things. First, tough shit, its the chance you take when you take chances and second, trade our 2015 #1 pick and something else and go the hell up and get him.

Keep in mind that those picks I suggested were simply for illustrative purposes. I know there is a pick value guide out there somewhere that says what each pick is worth on a point scale and to figure out what low round picks the #29 overall pick is worth you just add the numbers of the other picks. My suggestions might be way high or way low I don't know but you get the idea.



Exactly! Laughing Laughing Laughing

Thanks sschind! We don't really lose anything by bringing a player we like into the system a year early using next year's R1. As a matter of fact, if the player is really good, we gain by having him in system early, with a year of development already in hand by next season, and by having him on our team where that otherwise might not be without making the trade... It is the general idea of what I was trying to get across.

Of course, Ted would really have to hit, but he did it before with Matthews in a trade back into R1.
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#101 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 7:42:59 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 85
Applause Received: 149

I think 1st rd picks may have become more expensive to trade for since the last CBA. It limited the big money given to 1st rounders so teams have more reason not to trade now. Just my thought.

Sschind, I am confident our pick next year will be #32. So quit worrying about #20 or #25 or #29! :)

thanks Post received 2 applause.
play2win on 2/24/2014(UTC), nerdmann on 2/24/2014(UTC)
Offline sschind  
#102 Posted : Sunday, February 23, 2014 10:09:24 PM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 117
Applause Received: 422

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post


Sschind, I am confident our pick next year will be #32. So quit worrying about #20 or #25 or #29! :)



I know I know, I'm with you on that, I just didn't want to sound arrogant if you know what I mean.
I respect your right to have your opinion but that doesn't mean I agree with it or respect you for having it.
Offline QCHuskerFan  
#103 Posted : Monday, February 24, 2014 2:04:37 PM(UTC)
QCHuskerFan

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 12/30/2010(UTC)

Applause Given: 85
Applause Received: 149

One last thought on the elite defense. I live in IL so I am constantly exposed to Bears fans. They spent the entire Lovey Smith tenure bragging about their defense. Where'd it get them? How many trophies did they hoist? They didn't even really get close consistently. But they had Urlacher!!! Yippee.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
nerdmann on 2/24/2014(UTC)
Offline mi_keys  
#104 Posted : Monday, February 24, 2014 5:46:04 PM(UTC)
mi_keys

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 218
Applause Received: 352

Originally Posted by: QCHuskerFan Go to Quoted Post
One last thought on the elite defense. I live in IL so I am constantly exposed to Bears fans. They spent the entire Lovey Smith tenure bragging about their defense. Where'd it get them? How many trophies did they hoist? They didn't even really get close consistently. But they had Urlacher!!! Yippee.


I live in Chicago now so thank God they didn't. God bless Sexy Rexy.
Born and bred a cheesehead
thanks Post received 2 applause.
wpr on 2/24/2014(UTC), QCHuskerFan on 2/25/2014(UTC)
Offline play2win  
#105 Posted : Monday, April 14, 2014 2:01:32 PM(UTC)
play2win

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/29/2012(UTC)
Location: Milwaukee

Applause Given: 1,076
Applause Received: 725

So, let's say AZ, with the #20 pick, wants to trade down for more. They only have 6 picks in this draft.

Would you trade away next year's R1, this year's R3 #85, R4 #121 and R5 #161?

That would net us 2 first round picks, we would keep our R2 #53, our R3 #98, our R5 #176, R6 #197 and R7 #236.

I would love for Ted to do this if he saw fit to add players he liked at both #20 and 21.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
8 Pages«<5678>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error

Tweeter

Recent Topics
4m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Pack93z

11m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Pack93z

39m / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

52m / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

52m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / GermanGilbert

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / AbbaGav

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

6h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

7h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

22h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

22-Oct / Announcements / Zero2Cool

22-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

22-Oct / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool