Am I crazy for thinking we might be better off without him and sticking with what's worked so well without him? Back to back 30 plus games minus 87.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

Yes, you are crazy... and you are not giving the full story...

As it's not back to back 30 plus games minus 87...

It's back to back to back to back to back to back 30 point games with 87 catching slightly more than 23.5% (4/17) of Rodgers touchdown passes despite basically playing about 66.7% (4/6) of the games.

If Nelson was healthy then he might be over 30% of Rodgers touchdowns over that time span. Really it's Nelson or a surprisingly good undrafted rookie... I perfer Nelson at the moment if he's healthy.

They can put Nelson, Adams, Cobb, Cook and Montgomery on the feild at the same time... hopefully someone can beat press coverage and get open.

Originally Posted by: beast 

It's back to back playoff games of 30 plus points basically minus 87 for both. That is the story of this post season. I don't care what happened during the season.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

In other words, you don't care about anything that doesn't support your point of view in the matter...
So business as usual...

It was a good thought/questions but the fact that you don't care what happens outside your opinion undermines the entire thought/question. (Which partly proves you are crazy which you asked about)

The facts are the Packers have beated 4 NFC playoff teams during their 6 straight games of scoring 30 points or more.

In the four games Nelson finished he had 28 catches for 385 yards with 4 TDs.

Originally Posted by: beast 

Wow. I make a true statement that you attack and then you hammer me for redirecting this to my original point?

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 

The original point was about chemistry of scoring 30 points on defenses, which CLEARLY goes out of the scope you are attempting to limit it to. The original point was able Nelson return having a negative impact on scoring 30 points on a teamwhich again CLEARLY goes outside the scope that you are attempting to limit it to.

Your using the very small sample, while CLEARLY ignoring the larger sample...

But playoffs are teams are different... well the Packers beat all four of the NFC playoff teams thatare no longer in it... over those 6 weeks.

The original point was addressed very well and you said you didn't care... you want to focus in on the small negative sample because that's what you do...

Rodgers had a bad start in the Giants game because he kept trying to find the hole to escape the pocket and the Giants were purposely containing Rodgers to keep him in the pocket, which made Rodgers uncomfortable. .. until Rodgers realize this and finally put full trust into his OL's pass protection and the light went on, after Nelson left the game.

So back to the original point... Nelson CLEARLY helps the chemistry of the team... at least it's clear if your smart enough to look outside of the 15 minutes that Rodgers struggled in the Giants game.

Originally Posted by: beast