Contrary to popular belief the Packers sky is not falling· Page 2

DakotaT
Select Member

9 years ago

We're down Finley... when we lose a stud we always seem to go with the duct tape vs. the equivalent approach. Man, I've never hoped I was more wrong on a player than Richard Rodgers. He's our only hope.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

Why couldn't we have plucked Jimmy Graham from the Saints instead of Seattle? We would have been absolutely stacked, and we could have absorbed his contract to boot.

buckeyepackfan
Veteran Member Topic Starter

9 years ago

#12

1st in scoring, 11th in red zone efficiency. Sure, they could have been/could be better, but no weapons? Nightmarish? People would take you more seriously if you didn't post such ridiculous hyperbole.

When the range of improvement runs from scoring the most points in the league to the most points ever scored in history, the only thing that comes to mind is: first world problems.

The Raiders, Bears, Falcons, Saints, and Giants were all top #10 in RZE. All had losing records.

Originally Posted by: earthquake

Don't get sucked in.
Let me gives you the quick version.

Ted THOMPSON SUCKS.
Ted Thompson didn't sacrifice the future by signing. Jimmy Graham.

The Packers will never win again until Ted Thompson is gone.

There that will save you 5 pages of throwing facts at Uffda, thinking you can convince him The Packers are really pretty good.

I read the article, I agreed with what it said.

I was addicted to The Hokey Pokey, but I turned myself around!

nyrpack
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#13

lots of peeps need to take a chill pill, we go through this every year !!

jimmy b.

Porforis
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#14

Can we just win the super bowl already so we can all chill out? 🙂

DakotaT
Select Member

9 years ago

#15

What I get upset about with some of the posters in this forum is exactly what is going on right now. We do not have a number 1 elite receiver, and haven't had that since Sterling Sharpe. Our tight ends SUCK. A few of us point these things out and get ridiculed for it. Wouldn't this red zone efficiency be better if we had a player that could catch the jump balls? Wouldn't that open things up for everybody else, and make us a more potent offense? A discussion on this isn't even warranted, because we got hot in 2010 and won a super bowl? Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy are water walkers?

DarkaneRules
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#16

Those were hard fought games when we won the championship and we were 3 bad minutes away from the super bowl last year. We'll know who this team is by the end of the year. For now, relax eh?

Circular Arguments: They are a heck of an annoyance

uffda udfa
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#17

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

It'll never change, D. It's the truth. However, as my new favorite quote for this forum goes: Good is the enemy of great-Voltaire. Read through this forum and good is being celebrated as if it's great or even worse "good enough" which it isn't and hasn't been and probably won't be. Yet, there will be happiness and praising of just how good we have it around here losing in the playoffs every year. Then, we'll hear things like...the Browns would love to be us or some nonsense.

Ted Thompson sits on his hands per former GM: "because they’ve had 25 fricking years of great quarterbacks. Of course it works. Try it without a special quarterback."

DakotaT
Select Member

9 years ago

#18

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa

I just want the Packers to win multiple super bowls with their most recent elite quarterback. I felt cheated as a fan to watch Favre and Ahman Green in their prime, along with an incredible offensive line, and not even sniff the NFC championship game after 1997. What a waste.

This offseason, the tight end position should have been addressed and it wasn't. We are also rolling the dice on a bunch of really young secondary players. Nothing to do now but wait and see how it all shakes out. The people penciling us in for the super bowl right now, do not seem to realize just how quickly a supposed loaded team can have their weaknesses exposed. A team with a pass rush and good defensive backs can shut this offense down. We've seen it over and over in the playoffs.

musccy
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#19

This offseason, the tight end position should have been addressed and it wasn't. We are also rolling the dice on a bunch of really young secondary players. Nothing to do now but wait and see how it all shakes out. The people penciling us in for the super bowl right now, do not seem to realize just how quickly a supposed loaded team can have their weaknesses exposed.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

I'd genuinely love a good, hell a HOF TE on the roster too, but instead of bitching about it how do you propose the Packers could have addressed this?

Draft? Fine...which of the draft picks aren't on the Packers roster this year in favor of...

Jimmy G? Fine...he cost an All Pro and a first. What All Pro on the roster are you giving up?

Some other FA...ok, who?

I'm not against your/uffda's idea here, but there's no point in finger pointing sans viable solutions.

texaspackerbacker
Veteran Member

9 years ago

#20

Originally Posted by: DakotaT

oooooh - the truth comes out: the alter ego of uffda udfa is not me, but ....... drumroll ........ Dakota!

Seriously, where do they get off saying "POPULAR belief the Packer sky is falling"? No way anybody in his right mind thought that before, much less after beating a team like New England - make that dominating them.

Regarding Nerd's "self-shitting" fetish and more precisely the claim they "played not to lose", how can you make that claim when we go for it all those times on 4th down and twice for 2 point conversions?

Regarding the post quoted here, no, we didn't need to spend big or draft high to upgrade TE. It just ain't that important a position in the Packers offense. And we have plenty of excellence now at WR. The Red Zone problem was the O Line - and hopefully this is easy to adjust and fix. They allowed a heavy pass rush with so few Patriot players involved that New England was able to really load up the secondary. There was a traffic jam in the endzone.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.

Important Information:

The PACKERSHOME uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. More Details Close

Fan Shout

Zero2Cool (3h) : Could ban beast and I still don't think anyone catches him.

Mucky Tundra (17h) : Houston getting dog walked by Baltimore

packerfanoutwest (23h) : Feliz Navidad!

Zero2Cool (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas!

beast (25-Dec) : Merry Christmas 🎄🎁

beast (24-Dec) : Sounds like no serious injuries from the Saints game and Jacobs and Watson should play in the Vikings game

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : both games Watson missed, Packers won

Martha Careful (24-Dec) : I hope all of you have a Merry Christmas!

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Oh I know about Jacobs, I just couldn't pass up an opportunity to mimic Zero lol

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : Jacobs was just sat down, Watson re-injured that knee that kept him out 1 game earlier

buckeyepackfan (24-Dec) : I needed .14 that's. .14 points for the whole 4th quarter to win and go to the SB. Lol

Mucky Tundra (24-Dec) : Jacobs gonna be OK???

Zero2Cool (24-Dec) : Watson gonna be OK???

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : Inactives tonight for the Pack: Alexander- knee Bullard - ankle Williams - quad Walker -ankle Monk Heath

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : No Jaire, but hopefully the front 7 destroys the line of scrimmage & forces Rattler into a few passes to McKinney.

packerfanoutwest (24-Dec) : minny could be #1 seed and the Lions #5 seed

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : We'd have same Division and Conference records. Strength of schedule we edge them

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I just checked. What tie breaker?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes its possible but unlikely. If we do get the 5th, we face the NFCS winner

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ahh, ok.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : yes due to tie breaker

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I mean, unlikely, yes, but mathematically, 5th is possible by what I'm reading.

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : If Vikings lose out, Packers win out, Packers get 5th, right?

bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, the ad revenue goes to the broadcast company but they gotta pay to air the game on their channel/network

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : Mucky, I thought the ad revenue went to the broadcasting companies or the NFL, at least not directly

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think the revenue share is moot, isn't it? That's the CBA an Salary Cap handling that.

bboystyle (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : beast, I would guess ad revenue from more eyes watching tv

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I would think it would hurt the home team because people would have to cancel last minute maybe? i dunno

beast (23-Dec) : 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 (23-Dec) : bs on flexing the game....they do it for the $$league$$, not the hometown fans

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I see what you did there Mucky

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : dammit. 3:25pm

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Packers Vikings flexed to 3:35pm

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Upon receiving the news about Luke Musgrave, I immediately fell to the ground

Mucky Tundra (23-Dec) : Yeah baby!

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : LUKE MUSGRAVE PLAYING TONIGHT~!~~~~WOWHOAAOHAOAA yah

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I wanna kill new QB's ... blitz the crap out of them.

beast (23-Dec) : Barry seemed to get too conservative against new QBs, Hafley doesn't have that issue

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : However, we seem to struggle vs new QB's

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Should be moot point, cuz Packers should win tonight.

packerfanoutwest (23-Dec) : ok I stand corrected

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : Ok, yes, you are right. I see that now how they get 7th

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : 5th - Packers win out, Vikings lose out. Maybe?

beast (23-Dec) : Saying no to the 6th lock.

beast (23-Dec) : No, with the Commanders beating the Eagles, Packers could have a good chance of 6th or 7th unless the win out

Zero2Cool (23-Dec) : I think if Packers win, they are locked 6th with chance for 5th.

beast (23-Dec) : But it doesn't matter, as the Packers win surely win one of their remaining games

Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2024 Packers Schedule

Friday, Sep 6 @ 7:15 PM

Eagles

29 - 34

Sunday, Sep 15 @ 12:00 PM

COLTS

16 - 10

Sunday, Sep 22 @ 12:00 PM

Titans

30 - 14

Sunday, Sep 29 @ 12:00 PM

VIKINGS

29 - 31

Sunday, Oct 6 @ 3:25 PM

Rams

24 - 19

Sunday, Oct 13 @ 12:00 PM

CARDINALS

34 - 13

Sunday, Oct 20 @ 12:00 PM

TEXANS

24 - 22

Sunday, Oct 27 @ 12:00 PM

Jaguars

30 - 27

Sunday, Nov 3 @ 3:25 PM

LIONS

14 - 24

Sunday, Nov 17 @ 12:00 PM

Bears

20 - 19

Sunday, Nov 24 @ 3:25 PM

49ERS

38 - 10

Thursday, Nov 28 @ 7:20 PM

DOLPHINS

30 - 17

Thursday, Dec 5 @ 7:15 PM

Lions

31 - 34

Sunday, Dec 15 @ 7:20 PM

Seahawks

30 - 13

Monday, Dec 23 @ 7:15 PM

SAINTS

34 - 0

Sunday, Dec 29 @ 3:25 PM

Vikings

Saturday, Jan 4 @ 11:00 PM

BEARS