luigis
8 years ago

This is a “Red Herring” logical fallacy [a seemingly plausible, though an ultimately irrelevant, diversionary tactic].

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



Luigis said Rodgers wasn't good in the fourth quarter. I refuted that. If he doesn't want to talk about 4th quarters as a whole, then he should be more precise with his language. That isn't a red herring, that's responding to what someone said.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



I insist he wasn't good in the fourth quarter against Dallas. He was playing in bad-Rodgers mode.

I think Aaron does have some mental issue but I think he is doing better compared to previous years, the guy is terrific.

PS: That was my pic on twitter I was insanely mad he lost track of the only Dallas' player that caused trouble: Jeff Heath. Maybe Heath studied Rodgers better than the others because he picked him twice and almost got a potential game-winning fumble in that play.
Luis
luigis
8 years ago
I think there's something in Rodgers' eyes that can tell when he is in good-Rodgers or bad-Rodgers mode. I think he may be suffering some form of panic attacks.

 rodgers_before_after.png You have insufficient rights to see the content.

Luis
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
8 years ago

With as much time as you spent typing out a novel you'd think you'd bother providing more than a single example of Rodgers not winning a game-winning drive and putting into an actually relevant context (what is his overall QB rating, success/fail rate in potential gamewinning drive situations?). Then again that would mean you can't just cherrypick the worst possible example or would have to actually critically examine Rodgers' performance versus other NFL quarterbacks.

If you want to talk about logical fallacies, how about Proof by Example?

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



What’s the fallacy for fallaciously identifying a fallacy?😂

An example of a proof by example fallacy is: Jane, a woman, has black hair; therefore all women have black hair.

I’ve stated a hypothesis supported by a "novel" of connecting arguments backed by a "novel" of facts. A proper response entails either challenging the facts or to assert the facts fail to support the hypothesis.

You will have better understanding processing my argument through Eubulides' 5th Paradox:
A single grain of sand is certainly not a heap. Nor is the addition of a single grain of sand enough to transform a non-heap into a heap: when we have a collection of grains of sand that is not a heap, then adding but one single grain will not create a heap. And yet we know that at some point we will have a heap.😉


We don't know that he doesn't work on his breathing. He never said he ONLY does it in scary end of the game situations. I remember when it was reported Donovan McNabb barfed in the huddle in the one SB he played in. Now, that's a story. Someone working on their breathing is an acknowledgment that they might be vulnerable to a choke and want to prevent it. From that aspect, I can see what you're saying about possibly changing his approach. However, the outcome of the game disproves that he choked as choking is used when someone comes up short in a situation that they normally would've succeeded in 99% of the time. The situation was far from ideal so had he not driven us into FG range that's hardly a choke job as the situation was not overly conducive to success.

I like the fact that he's self aware enough to take action to combat something that might be an issue or maybe has been an issue for him in the past. Clearly, it worked....maybe, not so much on the Heath sack which is what you're saying but I read somewhere Aaron thought the guy was going to be blocked and accounted for. Having 88 on his right and not his left makes that questionable but there's no reason 88 couldn't have moved over to block Heath. Some hailed Montgomery for getting just enough of Heath to prevent him from stripping Rodgers. I would agree that it's odd he got blindsided like that. We don't see that very often...but if he was hyper focused on making a play down field assuming Heath was blocked, then there's nothing to see here at all as you're picking out ONE play. 1st down wasn't bad. A Cook drop if memory serves...then the big sack, and non fumble, and then 3rd and 20 to Cook. So, 2 of the 3 plays in ultra crunch time were very very good. 33% weren't. This argument makes all kinds of sense, potentially, had Rodgers fumbled and we ended up losing either in regular time or OT...but he didn't!!!!

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



Choking is about a drop in performance because one feels mental pressure; it has nothing to do with winning or losing. Rodgers’ performance dropped precipitously. He made at least 3 bad plays in the last 7 plays, which represents an increase of maybe 500 to 1000% more mistakes than he made during the rest of the game. That’s why Crosby’s choking was "similed" earlier; he didn’t miss all his 50 yarders, he hit 2 of 9 and just because he hit one didn’t mean he wasn’t choking.

No one would ever design a protection having the RB on right pick up a blitz from the 9 on the left. Rodgers' has got to know he’s outnumbered on left and must be prepared to roll right, if all three come. If the CB came, it is more understandable that he might not see it coming; but that safety is there specifically to threaten the blitz, he’s not there for run support. If Monty was moved left so it was 3 on 3, then it’d be unusual for Rodgers not to feel/see the safety blitzing; but Rodgers’ trusting his 3 on their 3 would be somewhere in the realm of possibility. If asked, Rodgers would have no explanation as to why he did not see that safety.

If you listen to Rodgers' post game press conference at about 3:40; I dont think there is any doubt his breathing is something he was doing only because he was feeling pressure. Him saying he was calm and positive implies this has been a problem. And the whole thing sounds like he's parroting his therapist, confirming that he was doing a good job on his therapy. It's like when he said he doesn't care what the press says...just saying that means he cares, if he didn't care, he'd say nothing about it. His spouting this stuff is a clear indication its a problem. I agree acknowledging the problem is step one in defeating the problem.

Luigis said Rodgers wasn't good in the fourth quarter. I refuted that. If he doesn't want to talk about 4th quarters as a whole, then he should be more precise with his language. That isn't a red herring, that's responding to what someone said.

Originally Posted by: mi_keys 



My reading comprehension failed me. You made a perfect argument. Sorry 'bout that Mi_Keys!
uffda udfa
8 years ago
I understand choking...you've been doing that a lot with your recent postings. :)

You can't evaluate this in a vacuum, though, and that's what you're doing. The Cowboys shifted more to a pressure scheme later in the game which was obviously causing problems. Aaron wasn't facing the same milquetoast D he was earlier in the game...it became considerably more aggressive which changes the equation. It isn't your typical straight apples to apples as you would say. Aaron's performance has tanked in the midst of games due to defensive adjustments. Not sure this wasn't one of those cases more than it was he altered his approach.

It makes some sense he's a recovering melt down artist based on his commentary. Like you and I both stated, it's good to acknowledge a problem so one can fix it and if, just if, that is what he was doing then I don't understand all the hub bub.

Still, I don't think his play dropped as precipitously as you stated. 2 of the 3 plays on the final drive were solid with everything on the line. The one bad one could've cost us the game. It makes me wonder what play he had next in AZ after the fateful kick 6.

If we're really going to Freud this one, I would offer this all cemented in Seattle. Watching that devastation had to affect him and the entire org. He was horrible the next year and most of this year. He was funkified after Seattle and likely from the other playoff near misses and debacles. He may have an issue remaining calm knowing his defense is likely to blow it IF he doesn't play like a legend. Honestly, our defense could make anyone hyperventilate. Can you imagine caring the way Rodgers does and all the work he puts in only to have our D blow it when it matters most? I think of how that feels just watching it as a fan...it's freaking tough to handle. It may have fractured his psyche. Nobody knows the full mental makeup of anyone and perhaps this is something he's been dealing with for some time. That would explain his horrible on field body language and frustrated facial expressions that he played with for 18 months. Now, that guy is gone. He told TJ Lang after a TD pass vs. the Lions at Lambeau...I'M BACK...perhaps, mentally speaking from blaming everyone and everything for those terrible playoff losses where he just didn't want to keep committing like he had been to watch his defense, TT, MM or whomever he blamed cost him again. It's hard going full tilt if you don't trust it's going to lead anywhere because someone else is going to just let you down anyway.

Seriously, I can't wait for the book that details what happened to Aaron with his play and bad body language. I don't ever care to read these sports books, but this one I would actually pick up if the excerpts don't give too much away.
UserPostedImage
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."


Porforis
8 years ago

What’s the fallacy for fallaciously identifying a fallacy?😂

An example of a proof by example fallacy is: Jane, a woman, has black hair; therefore all women have black hair.

I’ve stated a hypothesis supported by a "novel" of connecting arguments backed by a "novel" of facts. A proper response entails either challenging the facts or to assert the facts fail to support the hypothesis.

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



Yeah, why don't I just go ahead and spend 30 minutes digging up stats and writing out a compelling argument so you can go ahead and just ignore the post. Sounds like a blast and like we've NEVER had arguments on this exact same topic or very similar topics before. Or even every single year, if you're talking about the forum as a whole and not you specifically. 😃
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
8 years ago


You can't evaluate this in a vacuum, though, and that's what you're doing. The Cowboys shifted more to a pressure scheme later in the game which was obviously causing problems. Aaron wasn't facing the same milquetoast D he was earlier in the game...it became considerably more aggressive which changes the equation. It isn't your typical straight apples to apples as you would say. Aaron's performance has tanked in the midst of games due to defensive adjustments. Not sure this wasn't one of those cases more than it was he altered his approach.

Still, I don't think his play dropped as precipitously as you stated. 2 of the 3 plays on the final drive were solid with everything on the line. The one bad one could've cost us the game. It makes me wonder what play he had next in AZ after the fateful kick 6.

If we're really going to Freud this one, I would offer this all cemented in Seattle. Watching that devastation had to affect him and the entire org. He was horrible the next year and most of this year. He was funkified after Seattle and likely from the other playoff near misses and debacles. He may have an issue remaining calm knowing his defense is likely to blow it IF he doesn't play like a legend. Honestly, our defense could make anyone hyperventilate. Can you imagine caring the way Rodgers does and all the work he puts in only to have our D blow it when it matters most? I think of how that feels just watching it as a fan...it's freaking tough to handle. It may have fractured his psyche. Nobody knows the full mental makeup of anyone and perhaps this is something he's been dealing with for some time. That would explain his horrible on field body language and frustrated facial expressions that he played with for 18 months. Now, that guy is gone. He told TJ Lang after a TD pass vs. the Lions at Lambeau...I'M BACK...perhaps, mentally speaking from blaming everyone and everything for those terrible playoff losses where he just didn't want to keep committing like he had been to watch his defense, TT, Mike McCarthy or whomever he blamed cost him again. It's hard going full tilt if you don't trust it's going to lead anywhere because someone else is going to just let you down anyway.

Originally Posted by: uffda udfa 



What you are effectively saying is that Crosby was not in a funk in 2012, because he hit 2 50 yard FGs.

You're changing of the Dallas defense theory is not only wrong [they started blitzing more in 2nd Q], but its not a factor. There is nothing Aaron hasn't seen. NOW YOU GOTTA REALLY TRY TO UNDERSTAND THIS... let's say there is something Aaron hasn't seen, the first thing, the VERY FIRST THING, he and any other good HS, college or pro QB will do is try to figure it out BY LOCATING THE SAFETIES!

Every play Mike sends in has a Run/pass option. The first key is to locate the safeties; if a safety is in the box or not, or left or right, that determines whether a run play will succeed or whether a run is switched to opposite side or whether a mismatch is created that requires pass option. The progressions are established by where the safeties are positioned. Rodgers has no idea where his 1st read will be until he locates the safeties. Rodgers going to the line without locating the safeties is like you going to your car to drive it and not having the keys to start it. You cant go anywhere without your keys; Rodgers cant do anything without reading the safeties. This is why I say it is IMPOSSIBLE, for him not to know Heath was in the 9. Rodgers did see him and then imagined or Alzheimered him away. It is the same thing that caused him not to throw to an open Cobb in the Carolina game

2nd and 7, everyone knows its a run; Dallas loads ELEVEN in the box. You do understand they only have 11 guys right? There all there. You got Cook, Rodgers, Monty Rip, hell you send those guys out with all 11 guys freaking out, who will cover Spriggs? This play has a pass option and its practiced JUST FOR THIS SITUATION [10 or 11 in box]. Rodgers played brilliantly for 1/3 of the plays that I can see; I think maybe he flubbed one or 2, but after watching his brilliance i doubt my own eyes and wonder if there is something Aaron knew that I didn't. Then he runs wide on the edge of FG position and loses 6 yards, SIX YARDS. This is so stupid, so unlike Rodgers. But this is what guys that are choking do; they're afraid they'll fail so they get conservative and pass the buck.

3rd and 13, watch the damn play! He could have hit Cobb as read #1; Cook is read #2 to 3-4 yards ahead of Church in center of field; he probably had a 4th read to Cook on left numbers; but he chose the best covered and hardest throw read #3. This is stupid Doppleganger suddenly popping into the game.

Your devastated by Seattle loss and our D sucks theories are bogus; players are not fans, so projecting your emotions into them is silly.

Rodgers is a high functioning sociopath and it seems he was forged into one at an early age. Look at his "dad," giving an interview the weekend before Dallas game to NY times confirming Dunne's article was true. What an asshole; what a vindictive piece of shit that is seeking to further disenfranchise Aaron and fracture his own family. It is not fair to be a pro QB and have a "father" like this! I'll tell ya, reading this removed alot of my venom toward doppleganger. He never had a chance with a worthless asswipe for a "father." So Aaron's ability to cope and use so many of his other high quality traits to work to bury doppleganger is an amazing accomplishment. I'll bet this is why Mike has been so protective of Rodgers. Mike knew all along what is going on! Mike is infinitely more a father to Rodgers than Rodgers' "father."
Pack93z
8 years ago
UserPostedImage


"The oranges are dry; the apples are mealy; and the papayas... I don't know what's going on with the papayas!"
DoddPower
8 years ago
I could care less either way. A lot of pressure is put on Rodgers. So what if his strong suite isn't making huge comebacks? We all have weaknesses. Rodgers is most dangerous when the offense can strike early, build a lead, and play while ahead. The Packers should understand that and build a better defense that can protect leads.

The defense undoubtedly and routinely chokes late in games (or the entire game). As always, Rodgers is the least of the Packers concern. Why must Rodgers consistently live with a horrible defense, and then get labeled a "choker?" He is good enough in comeback situations. The defense needs to be much better, especially in the Playoffs. They did a good job in 2010 and the Packers won the Super Bowl. Shocking.

If Rodgers consistently had a "good" or better defense, most of these conversations wouldn't be an issue.
Barfarn
  • Barfarn
  • Senior Member Topic Starter
8 years ago

With as much time as you spent typing out a novel you'd think you'd bother providing more than a single example of Rodgers not winning a game-winning drive and putting into an actually relevant context (what is his overall QB rating, success/fail rate in potential gamewinning drive situations?). Then again that would mean you can't just cherrypick the worst possible example or would have to actually critically examine Rodgers' performance versus other NFL quarterbacks.
If you want to talk about logical fallacies, how about Proof by Example?

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



Yeah, why don't I just go ahead and spend 30 minutes digging up stats and writing out a compelling argument so you can go ahead and just ignore the post. Sounds like a blast and like we've NEVER had arguments on this exact same topic or very similar topics before. Or even every single year, if you're talking about the forum as a whole and not you specifically. :D

Originally Posted by: Porforis 



Ignore your post? I'm guessing maybe you want more examples? BTW, this is logical fallacy "moving the goal post" [argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is conclusorily dismissed and some other or greater evidence is demanded]; Some call this "raising the bar" fallacy. Here ya go, here's Rodgers playoff resume in crunch time:


2009 AZ: Rodgers' first playoff throw is an INT [guess he felt the pressure] and he struggled for a bit more than a quarter. Down 17-0 Rodgers calmed down and went bizerk really showing his greatness! Then in OT, he fumble looking very bad doing for AZ win.

2010 Philly, final 21-16: commanding lead late in 3rd Q[21-3] then punt, punt punt. Defense has to close out the game stopping Philly on last drive.

2010 Chicago, final 21-14: Commanding lead late in 4th [14-0] and Hanie in at QB for Bears, last 5 drives: punt, punt, punt, punt, punt. D closes out game w/ Raji TD and Shields Int].

2010 SB final 31-25: Commanding lead at half 21-10, then 4 punts. D gets turnover we get TD. Its 4th Q 7:34 up by 3 at 25. If our HOF QB can drive down the field and score a TD while burning up 4-5 minutes, the game is over. We get only a FG, up by 6 and 2:07 left, the D has to close out [Jerrat Bush gets INT.]

2011 Giants: At half we’re in trouble down 20-10. But, no problem, GB starts half with ball and D gets 2 straight 3 and outs. But, in 3 drives sandwiching the two 3 and outs: they end with a Rodgers fumble, FG, Downs…Game over.

2012 Minny final 24-10: In middle of 3rd Q, GB takes a commanding 24-3 lead, followed by 6 drives, 6 straight punts, and a total of 12 net yards. The D has to close out the game.

2013 SF, final 20-23: Down 13-10 at half. SF starts with ball, D does its job, stops SF on 3 straight drives. Rodgers’ response: 2 drives, 8 plays, zero yards…we go into 4th still down 13-10. We have ball in middle of 4th down by 3…If GB scores a TD, SF will need to score a TD to win, but Rodgers can only get FG, SF closes out game on last drive.

2014 Dallas, final 26-21: Down 21-13 late in 3rd; Rodgers gets TD, TD, 9 play drive to end the game. This is the ONLY PO game Rodgers closed out like a true Tom Brady.

2014 Seattle, 28-22: GB has insurmountable 16-0 lead at half. Then it’s: 3 plays and punt; 4plays and punt; then a 9 play 62 yard drive, 6 runs by RB 55 yards, Rodgers 1-3 7 yards and FG; 3 plays 6 yards and punt; (after INT) 3 plays -4 and punt. On those 5 key drives, Rodgers is 4-8-27 and he took 1 sack for -7. Yes the D collapse; yes the STs collapsed; but our $22M HOF QB choked in the 2nd half.

2015 Wash 35-18- GB takes insurmountable 32-18 lead at 3:02 and 3rd Q and the D causes Punt, Downs, Downs, Downs; while the O, Punt [3 plays, 5 yards], FG [3 plays 6 yards], fumble 2 plays 12 yards.

2015 AZ 20-26: After Cobb goes down so all the weapons are supposedly gone. We build a lead of 13-10 and the strength of two 17 play drives. Even with "no weapons," if Mike’s offense is executed by a real man dedicated to his work, and not some gunslinging egocentric child, it is unstoppable.
We have the ball with 19 minutes to go: all we need is one more multi-play drive 17 play drive for a FG. But, we get: 3 plays, 0 yards and punt; 7 plays, 23 yards and punt. Still no problem, we’re down by 4, 3:44 to go and our HOF QB has got the ball! What do we get: 4 plays, 5 yards and lose the ball on downs.
sschind
8 years ago

This argument constitutes a logical fallacy called "ad hominem" [an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself].

Something annoying about Packer fans: we won, so praise is effusive; but, if GB left 1 second on clock and Dallas got another “Music City miracle” and we lost, then everyone gets over Uffda critical [This phrase was officially accepted by Merriam Webster in July 2016😂 ]. Fans portending to be analysts cannot let the outcome of a game or a play prejudice the evaluation the game or play. Or just because someone is an idol or had some big statistics doesn't mean they did everything right.

Rodgers SAID he had took the conscious effort to control his breathing on the last drive; the mention of this in this way infers he does not do it at other times in the game. He changed what he did at crunch time. Have you ever heard another athlete say such a thing? Then some absolute absurdities in his play are pointed out at the same time he talks about he was thinking about his breathing. Why would anyone take time to respond to this with an ad hominem?

Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



You are using the fact that Rodgers said he made a conscious effort to control his breathing to say he is admitting he choked. You are equating "controlling his breathing" with "choking" You do not care for Arron Rodgers so when he makes a comment about controlling his breathing you take the opportunity to put him down by saying he admitted he choked. The two are not in any way the same thing. Especially when we all know that "choked" in the way you wanted us to interpret your comment has nothing to do with breathing.

If you want to use whatever stats you dig up as evidence that he chokes that is a different argument but it has nothing to do with his breathing.
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (2h) : The menu you expanded to log in, it's the first icon under "PackersHome" .. maybe i should add text to it
dfosterf (2h) : Feelin' pfowish can't find the sun. No big deal, will drag a laptop out when the time comes
Zero2Cool (2h) : if you're on mobile, open the menu and its the "sun" icon
dfosterf (2h) : Can't find the toggle, lol
dfosterf (2h) : I can find that the Microsoft lady rep for Titletown Tech is the philanthropy boss for the entire Microsoft corporation, but. .
Zero2Cool (2h) : There's a toggle for light/dark theme. Super easy.
dfosterf (3h) : The white background beta was hard to read, especially the quotes
dfosterf (3h) : Hopefully the color scheme remains the same
dfosterf (3h) : *Friday*
dfosterf (3h) : 100 million would be 539 million as of Fridsy
dfosterf (3h) : Heck, they could have taken a hundred milliion and invested in DAVE inc. last year (semi random, humor, but real)
dfosterf (3h) : Beer brat and ticket is where the money comes from
dfosterf (3h) : The 40th is Titletown Tech itself. This is a pet project of both Ed Policy and Mark Murphy
Zero2Cool (3h) : New site coming along nicely. The editor is better than what we have here. Oh yeah!
dfosterf (3h) : No profit that I know of. 0 for 40
dfosterf (4h) : The woke reference has to do with the makeup and oftentimes objectives of the companies they invested in
packerfanoutwest (4h) : beer and brats woke? say whom?
beast (4h) : I don't want to get into politics, but how is, beers and brats considered to be "woke"? Food is food...
beast (4h) : That being said, I'm not saying all 100% should be that way, but not surprised if majority are Wisconsin based
beast (4h) : And if everyone has heard of them, then it it probably has less growth potential and less community based
beast (4h) : Well isn't the investing person supposed to invest the money?
dfosterf (4h) : I swear if I were to discover that one of them has invented a virtue signalling transmitter I will not be surprised, lol
dfosterf (4h) : 39 companies so far that I bet no one has ever heard of.
dfosterf (4h) : -Not saying woke, but should- borderline philanthopist venture capital excercise
dfosterf (4h) : Well for one, they are pouring resources into Title Town Tech. Investing beer, brat, hot dog, ticket money into what is pretty much...
beast (11h) : Wow, 95% drop in investment revenue? Would be interesting to hear the details of why...
dfosterf (25-Jul) : It's my one day deal complaint dept. on shareholder meeting day
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Probably a homer access credential intimidation kinda thing
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Meathead "journalists" skip this, concentrating on operational revenue when convenient. They switch when net revenue is more favorable.
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Resulting in an actual drop of net revenue of 12.5%. She is from Minnesota. Just sayin'
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Any plans to hold Maureen Smith (CFO) accountable for a 95% drop in investment revenue?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : In your face, HBO!
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @ByRyanWood Mark Murphy: “A great source of pride of mine is that we were never on Hard Knocks.”
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : *years
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @mattschneidman Mark Murphy says he anticipates “many Packers games” being played in Germany, Ireland and/or the U.K. over the next 5-10 yea
dfosterf (25-Jul) : *cafeteria* I have hit my head also, so I sympathize
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Possibly hit his head leaning into the glass protecting the food in the cafateria
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Maybe a low flying drone
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Did Savion Williams run into a goalpost or something?
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : also, no bueno when a guy starts getting concussions right off the bat in his career
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Concussion is worse. Banks probably vet off day via back booboo claim
Mucky Tundra (25-Jul) : @AndyHermanNFL Jordy Nelson out at camp today. No word if he’s in play for one of the two open roster spots ; )
dfosterf (25-Jul) : Is that better or worse than Banks bad back?
Zero2Cool (25-Jul) : Savion concussion ... not good.
packerfanoutwest (24-Jul) : Aaron Rodgers’s first pass of first team period was picked off
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : tbh I didn't hear of his passing
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : Cosby Show. Malcom Jamal Warner I think is real name
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : I was thinking of Ozzy and Hulk
Mucky Tundra (24-Jul) : Who's Theo?
Zero2Cool (24-Jul) : How is Theo alliteration?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2025 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 7 @ 3:25 PM
LIONS
Thursday, Sep 11 @ 7:15 PM
COMMANDERS
Sunday, Sep 21 @ 12:00 PM
Browns
Sunday, Sep 28 @ 7:20 PM
Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 12 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Sunday, Oct 19 @ 3:25 PM
Cardinals
Sunday, Oct 26 @ 7:20 PM
Steelers
Sunday, Nov 2 @ 12:00 PM
PANTHERS
Monday, Nov 10 @ 7:15 PM
EAGLES
Sunday, Nov 16 @ 12:00 PM
Giants
Sunday, Nov 23 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Thursday, Nov 27 @ 12:00 PM
Lions
Sunday, Dec 7 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Dec 14 @ 3:25 PM
Broncos
Friday, Dec 19 @ 11:00 PM
Bears
Friday, Dec 26 @ 11:00 PM
RAVENS
Saturday, Jan 3 @ 11:00 PM
Vikings
Recent Topics
2h / Feedback, Suggestions and Issues / Zero2Cool

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

25-Jul / Around The NFL / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

25-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

25-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

24-Jul / Around The NFL / beast

24-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

22-Jul / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

22-Jul / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

Headlines
Copyright © 2006 - 2025 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.