Greg C.
14 years ago
[quote="DakotaT"]Our offense screwed the pooch again in the red zone./quote]

I don't understand the "again" part. The Packers have done very well in the red zone this season. Even in this game, the fumble was the only problem. In their other three red zone appearances, they got two TDs and a field goal.

Let's not turn a failure on one drive into a chronic shortcoming.
blank
peteralan71
14 years ago

[quote="DakotaT"]Our offense screwed the pooch again in the red zone./quote]

I don't understand the "again" part. The Packers have done very well in the red zone this season. Even in this game, the fumble was the only problem. In their other three red zone appearances, they got two TDs and a field goal.

Let's not turn a failure on one drive into a chronic shortcoming.

"Greg C." wrote:



I wouldn't consider a FG a successful outcome when the team makes it down to the red zone, though. It is just the same as punting, the field position is the only difference. Obviously a FG is better than punting, but I still say that a FG is not exactly a success.
Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.
UserPostedImage
LambeauEast
14 years ago
My thoughts...if Brickhands Johnson catches that one pass on the goal line, Rodgers never gets the chance to fumble, which turns into an eventual Falcon TD. 7 point swing right there, game!

Shoulda, woulda coulda though...oh well.
UserPostedImage
Greg C.
14 years ago

[quote="DakotaT"]Our offense screwed the pooch again in the red zone./quote]

I don't understand the "again" part. The Packers have done very well in the red zone this season. Even in this game, the fumble was the only problem. In their other three red zone appearances, they got two TDs and a field goal.

Let's not turn a failure on one drive into a chronic shortcoming.

"peteralan71" wrote:



I wouldn't consider a FG a successful outcome when the team makes it down to the red zone, though. It is just the same as punting, the field position is the only difference. Obviously a FG is better than punting, but I still say that a FG is not exactly a success.

"Greg C." wrote:



So two TDs and a field goal is not good enough. Apparently they must score a TD every single time they are in the red zone. High standards.
blank
Pack93z
14 years ago

My thoughts...if Brickhands Johnson catches that one pass on the goal line, Rodgers never gets the chance to fumble, which turns into an eventual Falcon TD. 7 point swing right there, game!

Shoulda, woulda coulda though...oh well.

"LambeauEast" wrote:



Worst part.. the pass wasn't intended for him.
"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
Greg C.
14 years ago

My thoughts...if Brickhands Johnson catches that one pass on the goal line, Rodgers never gets the chance to fumble, which turns into an eventual Falcon TD. 7 point swing right there, game!

Shoulda, woulda coulda though...oh well.

"pack93z" wrote:



Worst part.. the pass wasn't intended for him.

"LambeauEast" wrote:



Which is why it was nearly impossible to catch. Brick hands, my ass. If he's guilty of anything, he may have run the wrong route. Or maybe the other guy did. Or maybe Rodgers underthrew it.
blank
peteralan71
14 years ago

[quote="DakotaT"]Our offense screwed the pooch again in the red zone./quote]

I don't understand the "again" part. The Packers have done very well in the red zone this season. Even in this game, the fumble was the only problem. In their other three red zone appearances, they got two TDs and a field goal.

Let's not turn a failure on one drive into a chronic shortcoming.

"Greg C." wrote:



I wouldn't consider a FG a successful outcome when the team makes it down to the red zone, though. It is just the same as punting, the field position is the only difference. Obviously a FG is better than punting, but I still say that a FG is not exactly a success.

"peteralan71" wrote:



So two TDs and a field goal is not good enough. Apparently they must score a TD every single time they are in the red zone. High standards.

"Greg C." wrote:



Not at all. I'm just saying that coming out with a FG is good, but obviously we would much rather have a touchdown. If we force a turnover in the opposing team's 1-35 yard line, putting us in FG range immediately, we could do nothing and kick a FG on 4th and 10. Do you consider that series a success? Kind of, but in a tongue in cheek sort of way. Does Aaron Rodgers and his supporting 10 consider a FG a success, or are they upset that they didn't come away with 6? The field position is the only thing that changes how you feel about it, which in this case had nothing to do with the offense. I just don't like going to 4th down. Ever.
Green Bay: Home of the Green & Gold. And the hunter orange. And the camouflage.
UserPostedImage
Nonstopdrivel
14 years ago
A field goal at the end of a long drive is a success in a tongue-in-cheek way? Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm confused how considering a field goal to be a success is a humorous assessment.
UserPostedImage
warhawk
14 years ago
Considering we lost all four freaking games by a FG and would have won the Redskins game with one at the end I'll take whatever points we can put up.

IMO I think it is wise to take the points whenever your on the road playing a good team. Especially in games where it's pretty obvious neither team is going to go up and down the field scoring a ton of points.

Now in certain games like possibly NE coming up when the scoreboard is more than likely going to get lit up and the team your playing isn't that stout on defense I say you go for it there.

On the other hand when we play teams like NY or the Bears I say put the 3 points on the board every time.
"The train is leaving the station."
Fan Shout
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol
buckeyepackfan (9h) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier
buckeyepackfan (9h) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol
Mucky Tundra (9h) : Jacobs gonna be OK???
Zero2Cool (9h) : Watson gonna be OK???
packerfanoutwest (13h) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath
packerfanoutwest (13h) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.
packerfanoutwest (13h) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed
Zero2Cool (15h) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them
Zero2Cool (15h) : I just checked. What tie breaker?
bboystyle (15h) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner
Zero2Cool (15h) : Ahh, ok.
bboystyle (15h) : yes due to tie breaker
Zero2Cool (15h) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.
Zero2Cool (15h) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?
bboystyle (15h) : Minny isnt going to lose out so 5th seed is out of the equation. We are playing for the 6th or 7th seed which makes no difference
Mucky Tundra (16h) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network
beast (17h) : If we win tonight the game is still relative in terms of 5th, 6th or 7th seed... win and it's 5th or 6th, lose and it's 6th or 7th
beast (17h) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly
Zero2Cool (17h) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.
bboystyle (17h) : i mean game becomes irrelevant if we win tonight. Just a game where we are trying to play spoilers to Vikings chance at the #1 seed
Mucky Tundra (17h) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv
Zero2Cool (18h) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno
beast (18h) : I agree that it's BS for fans planning on going to the game. But how does it bring in more money? I'm guessing indirectly?
packerfanoutwest (18h) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans
Zero2Cool (19h) : I see what you did there Mucky
Zero2Cool (19h) : dammit. 3:25pm
Zero2Cool (19h) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm
Mucky Tundra (19h) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground
Mucky Tundra (19h) : Yeah baby!
Zero2Cool (19h) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah
Zero2Cool (21h) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.
beast (21h) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue
Zero2Cool (21h) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's
Zero2Cool (21h) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.
packerfanoutwest (22h) : ok I stand corrected
Zero2Cool (22h) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th
Zero2Cool (22h) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?
beast (22h) : Saying no to the 6th lock.
beast (22h) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out
Zero2Cool (22h) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.
beast (22h) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games
beast (22h) : This is not complex, just someone doesn't want to believe reality
beast (22h) : We already have told you... if Packers lose all their games (they won't, but if they did), and Buccaneers and Falcons win all theirs
Zero2Cool (22h) : I posted it in that Packers and 1 seed thread
Zero2Cool (22h) : I literally just said it.
packerfanoutwest (22h) : show us a scenario where Pack don't get in? bet you can't
Zero2Cool (22h) : Falcons, Buccaneers would need to win final two games.
Zero2Cool (22h) : Yes, if they win one of three, they are lock. If they lose out, they can be eliminated.
packerfanoutwest (22h) : as I just said,,gtheyh are in no matter what
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2024 Packers Schedule
Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM
Eagles
Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM
Titans
Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM
Rams
Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM
CARDINALS
Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM
Jaguars
Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM
Bears
Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM
49ERS
Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM
DOLPHINS
Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM
Seahawks
Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM
Vikings
Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM
BEARS
Recent Topics
24m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

21h / Random Babble / Martha Careful

22-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / packerfanoutwest

19-Dec / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

18-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

17-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17-Dec / Featured Content / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

16-Dec / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Mucky Tundra

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

16-Dec / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.