Nonstopdrivel
15 years ago
The point is the collective weight of those points you mentioned doesn't warrant the level of vitriol you spew against him.

You rail against the offensive line situation, yet we were a top-5 offense last year. Either the offensive line isn't all that bad, or Rodgers is an incredible quarterback. You can't have it both ways.

Vonta Leach? What has he done since he was released? The guy has 3 rushing yards, 291 receiving yards, and 3 receiving TDs in 6 years. Sure, he may be a good run blocker, but it's not like he helped keep his QB in Houston from being one of the most sacked QBs in the league year in and year out.

The Williams situation has been debunked to death. He wasn't going to stay on the Packers and he's done nothing since he left.

Jon Ryan consistently ranks in the top 10 in yardage (though not in net yardage), yet he's also one of the most-blocked punters in the league. So it's a mixed bag.
UserPostedImage
porky88
15 years ago

Cutler and Rodgers are actually back to back in my QB rankings.

I actually prefer Rodgers slightly more because I think he's got a better attitude and a "moxy" about him that a lot of the great ones have. A quiet cool so to speak.

I never saw that in Cutler.

I think people overestimate Chicago quite a bit.

For example, Matt Forte who has become a very big time back in many people's eyes put up basically the same numbers as Ryan Grant did last year. Both averaged about 3.9 yards a carry. Forte is a little more versatile, but when it came to running, both were about equal.

Yet Grant is viewed as a disappointment by many people including Packer fans and Forte is being touted as the next great Chicago back. The best one since arguably Walter Payton.

I don't get that and I bet if you look at a lot of rankings for backs in the game today, Forte is ahead of Grant by a lot. No way does catching the ball out of the backfield justify that in my view.

Much like some people put Cutler between 5 and 10 in the best QB's in the game today and Rodgers is quite away behind.

It makes little sense and it wreaks of big city bias if you ask me.

"dd80forever" wrote:



You also might want to factor in that Forte was basically placed in a one dimensional offense because of terrible QB play whereas GB has a good set of WR's. Grant should put Forte to shame in this scenario.

"porky88" wrote:



That would be correct if teams didn't stack the box against the Packers. The only team that didn't was Minnesota because they don't need to with the talent they have at stopping the run.

Both backs faced teams who stacked the box. Part of the reason why Rodgers did put up as good as numbers as he did was because teams put a bigger emphasis on stopping Grant.

Rodgers has a couple of games and specifically Tennessee where he benefited from the isolated defensive backs facing Green Bay's receivers. The Titans are one example of a team who focused on stopping the run.

Dallas is another. I was at that game and Dallas put a big emphasis on stopping Ryan Grant. They made sure he was not going to get going.

The week before the Lions did as well. Pretty much because they didn't want to get embarrassed again by another back due to Michael Turner putting up 200 on them in week one.

Atlanta and Tampa Bay are two more teams that did this.

Don't get me wrong, I'd take Forte over Grant mostly because Forte is an every down player, but I think putting Forte in the upper echelon of backs is a joke and some have gone out of there way to try and make that point.

3.9 yards per carry doesn't make you the next Walter Payton or an elite back at all. It doesn't for Grant, but then again nobody is making him out to be something that he's not.
dd80forever
15 years ago

The point is the collective weight of those points you mentioned doesn't warrant the level of vitriol you spew against him.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:




That is your opinion, sir. I was responding to your post about me having no reason to dislike him.

The problem is because you think these points are not valid, that I should just say "Nonstop is right. I like him now".

If those things don't bother you, fine. However, they bother me to a great degree. We were 6-10 last year. Whether out Offense was a top offense in the league means nothing. We had to keep extra guys in to help protect A-Rod last year, the O-line is far from fixed.

I've stated my opinion 100 times over on Williams thing you are so proudly stating you have Debunked. Before you start pounding your chest, realize my problem was not that we let Williams go, but the fact we tried to use Jamal Bustin Mandarich Harrell to replace him. Are you saying Ted did a good job handling the D-Line situation? Now get out the ........"Ted not perfect"..... "It's not his fault" ...... "Sanders is gone"...... line of garbage.

Ryan is better than Derrick Frost any day of the week and stating Ryan gets more punts blocked than Frost is a bogus argument and is grasping for straws.

You talk about Vonta Leach's stats but forgot to mention what the stats for Koren Robinson were. Vonta was a hell of a blocker. Pointing to a FB's stats as validation is laughable though, I must admit. Where's Koren these days? He was definitly "Packer People".

The point is because you give ted a mulligan for these things, I do not, and I haven't even touched the Favre fiasco, but don't run around here doing cartwheels repeating your worn-out rhetoric about me "having no reason to dislike him" thing, when I have laid out a list for you.

Wouldn't it be nice if Ted just won football games, so you could point to that as validation instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel for "Punts Blocked" stats. Your neverending defending of him could be easily back-up with a Super Bowl appearence if he had one. I think that would be great as well.
blank
TheEngineer
15 years ago


We were 6-10 last year. Whether out Offense was a top offense in the league means nothing. We had to keep extra guys in to help protect A-Rod last year, the O-line is far from fixed.

"dd80forever" wrote:



Well that's an interesting thing to say. If it is then the case that the performance of the offense is immaterial considering the record, how does one delineate the collective faults of the team that rendered us 6-10 for the season? If you can say, Jon Ryan's release and his replacement were clearly a mistake by Thompson which in turn was one reason among many which caused the Packers to fall to 6-10, then why is it not reasonable to say however that the offense of the Packers performed well for the season, and some aspect of the coaching team should be congratulated for that? Why is it that the negative means something but the positive does not?
blank
dd80forever
15 years ago


We were 6-10 last year. Whether out Offense was a top offense in the league means nothing. We had to keep extra guys in to help protect A-Rod last year, the O-line is far from fixed.

"TheEngineer" wrote:



Well that's an interesting thing to say. If it is then the case that the performance of the offense is immaterial considering the record, how does one delineate the collective faults of the team that rendered us 6-10 for the season? If you can say, Jon Ryan's release and his replacement were clearly a mistake by Thompson which in turn was one reason among many which caused the Packers to fall to 6-10, then why is it not reasonable to say however that the offense of the Packers performed well for the season, and some aspect of the coaching team should be congratulated for that? Why is it that the negative means something but the positive does not?

"dd80forever" wrote:




I'm trying to decipher this. You want me to congratulate the coaching staff on assembling an offense with good stats?

Ok, Good Job Staff!

And while I'm at it......

Good Job Ted Thompson for giving us alot of Cap Space!

and Good Job A-Rod for not throwing a pletora of INT'S!

and Good Job A-Rod for growing that ultra-hip stache

and Good Job to all the Packers for doing charity work!


.........................................................Now, can we PLEASE win some football games
blank
Orygunfan76
15 years ago

The problem with the Bears and how they're viewed is people actually think they still have a good defense.

That was soooooo 2005 and 2006.

The defense struggled in 07 and got even worse last season.

How is it going to get better?

They don't have many young pieces in place. The DE's are a mess with Kampman and yes Cullen Jenkins in four games having more sacks combined than the Bears trio.

Good linebackers even though Urlacher is declining.

Terrible secondary though. I mean awful in comparisons to Green Bay's and Minnesota's.

I think the Bears could win the division because of Cutler and Forte, but No. 4 is obsurb. I would take the Giants, Eagles, Cowboys, and Falcons ahead of Chicago for sure.

That's just in the NFC.

"porky88" wrote:



The Bears defense faultered in 2007 due mainly to injuries. They had lost 5 defensive starters by about the 4th week of that season(nearly half the starting defense!) that'll kill any teams defense as well as having the defense on the field the whole time because their offense was a joke in 07 and 08(other than Forte maybe). In 08 the defense was a top 5 unit against the run but the secondary got killed due to the fact that they didn't have any sort of pass rush so opposing QBs had all day to pick them apart (see Griese and his 67 pass attempts against them). I think the Bears defensive secondary and front four will be much improved from last season maybe not 05-06 form, but much improved. I think the Packers defense will suffer growing pains from the switchover to the 3-4 but will eventually be really good. Minny's defense will not be as good when the steroid brothers miss their 4 games. Detroit......can they get any worse?

Oh yeah, and yes, I think the Bears are ranked too high.
blank
Fan Shout
Zero2Cool (1h) : Raiders hired someone from the elderly home.
dfosterf (3h) : I'm going with a combination of the two.
beast (5h) : Either the Cowboys have no idea what they're doing, or they're targeting their former OC, currently the Eagles OC
Zero2Cool (22h) : Fake news. Cowboys say no
Zero2Cool (23h) : Mystery candidate in the Cowboys head coaching search believed to be Packers ST Coordinator Rich Bisaccia.
beast (23-Jan) : Also why do both NYC teams have absolutely horrible OL for over a decade?
beast (23-Jan) : I wonder why the Jets always hire defensive coaches to be head coach
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Still HC positions available out there. I wonder if Hafley pops up for one
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Trent Baalke is out as the Jaguars GM.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Jeff Hafley would have been a better choice, fortunately they don't know that. Someone will figure that out next off season
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Aaron Glenn Planning To Take Jets HC Job
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Martha- C'est mon boulot! 😁
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you
wpr (22-Jan) : Z, glad you are feeling better.
wpr (22-Jan) : My son and D-I-L work for UM. It's a way to pick on them.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : Thank you. I rarely get sick, and even more rarely sick to the point I can't work.
wpr (22-Jan) : Beast- back to yesterday, I CAN say OSU your have been Michigan IF the odds of making the playoffs were more urgent.
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Glad to hear you are feeling a bit better.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : I've been near death ill last several days, finally feel less dead and site issues.
Zero2Cool (22-Jan) : It is a big deal. This host is having issues. It's frustrating.
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : just kidding...it was down
Martha Careful (22-Jan) : you were blocked yesterday, due to a a recalcitrant demeanor yesterday in the penalty box for a recalcitrant demeanor
dfosterf (22-Jan) : Was that site shutdown on your end or mine? No big deal, just curious
beast (21-Jan) : That way teams like Indiana and SMU don't make the conference championships by simply avoiding all the other good teams in their own confere
beast (21-Jan) : Also, with these "Super Conferences" instead of a single conference champion, have 4 teams make a Conference playoffs.
beast (21-Jan) : Also in college football, is a bye week a good or bad thing?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : The tournament format was fine. Seeding could use some work.
beast (21-Jan) : You can't assume Ohio State would of won the Michigan game...
beast (21-Jan) : Rankings were 1) Oregon 2) Georgia 3) Texas 4) Penn State 5) Notre Dame 6) Ohio State, none of the rest mattered
wpr (21-Jan) : Texas, ND and OSU would have been fighting for the final 2 slots.
wpr (21-Jan) : Oregon and Georgia were locks. Without the luxury of extra playoff berths, Ohios St would have been more focused on Michigan game.
wpr (21-Jan) : Zero, no. If there were only 4 teams Ohio State would have been one of them. Boise St and ASU would not have been selected.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : So that was 7 vs 8, that means in BCS they never would made it?
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : A great game. Give ND credit for coming back, although I am please with the outcome.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : FG to make it academic
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : and there's the dagger
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooo 8 point game with 4 minutes to go!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ooooooooohhhhhh he missed!
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Ooooo that completion makes things VERY interesting
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Game not over yet
beast (21-Jan) : Oh yeah, Georgia starting quarterback season ending elbow injury
beast (21-Jan) : Sadly something happened to Georgia... they should be playing in this game against Ohio State
beast (21-Jan) : I thought Ohio State and Texas were both better than Notre Dame & Penn State
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame getting rolled
Martha Careful (21-Jan) : Ohio State just got punched in the gut. Lets see how they respond
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Notre Lame vs the Luckeyes, bleh
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : Oh snap!!!
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Even Stevie Wonder can see that.
Zero2Cool (21-Jan) : Nah, you see Lions OC leaving to be HC of Bears is directly related to Packers.
Mucky Tundra (21-Jan) : ohhhhhhh Zero is in TROUBLE
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
Sunday, Jan 5 @ 12:00 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Jan 12 @ 3:30 PM
Eagles
Recent Topics
4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

22-Jan / Random Babble / packerfanoutwest

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

21-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

19-Jan / Random Babble / Martha Careful

18-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

17-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Martha Careful

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

16-Jan / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

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