Chicago Fanatics Message Board http://www.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
Green Bay Packers http://www.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=90&t=82801 |
Page 23 of 28 |
Author: | W_Z [ Mon Jan 18, 2016 4:12 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
i don't think good dolphin has watched an NFL game in years, truthfully. |
Author: | good dolphin [ Mon Jan 18, 2016 6:22 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
FavreFan wrote: W_Z wrote: minnesota doesn't play in a dome anymore. I was gonna say that, but then I googled it and it looks like they will play in a fixed roof stadium starting next year. I'll give dolphin the benefit of the doubt there. But I still don't know what his post meant. I most certainly did know that in making my post. I believe the Vikings have the talent to be a regular playoff attendee for the next few years. However, dome teams rarely do well outside of a dome setting at playoff time. I believe this will be particularly true of the Bridgewater lead Vikings, whose game has been shown to be susceptible to bad weather. |
Author: | Zizou [ Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:51 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
I'm not as upset as last year. Last year's team shit the bed and could have won the Super Bowl. Packers need a solid ILB and then Matthews could go back to OLB. I imagine they will draft a RB to light a fire under Lacy's ample ass. Wish they'd get serious about a real ass TE. Maybe they are since they fired the TE coach. |
Author: | veganfan21 [ Mon Jan 25, 2016 8:11 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Report: Mike McCarthy Fed Up With Packers Management Refusing To Sign Free Agents http://deadspin.com/report-mike-mccarth ... 1754846295 |
Author: | Kirkwood [ Mon Sep 26, 2016 6:19 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Cornerbacks suck. Lacy too fat. No zip. This team has wild card win and out written all over them. |
Author: | FavreFan [ Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Kirkwood wrote: Cornerbacks suck. Lacy too fat. No zip. This team has wild card win and out written all over them. I think Randell will eventually be good but they can't keep leaving him on an island this year. Also, Capers is a dipshit. Personnel doesn't really matter since they have been routinely torched by #1 wideouts for his entire tenure here. |
Author: | Kirkwood [ Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:16 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
FavreFan wrote: Kirkwood wrote: Cornerbacks suck. Lacy too fat. No zip. This team has wild card win and out written all over them. I think Randell will eventually be good but they can't keep leaving him on an island this year. Also, Capers is a dipshit. Personnel doesn't really matter since they have been routinely torched by #1 wideouts for his entire tenure here. Caper has it made. Defense is never amazing but never dreadful except for '11. Then every time there is a blown assignment the excuse parroted by writers is all the young blood Ted is always churning needs time to learn the "complicated" Caper scheme. |
Author: | Zizou [ Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:18 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Classic McCarthy era win yesterday; jump out to a big lead early, get conservative, and eke out a victory. I think Lacy is hitting the holes a lot faster than he was last year. He had a nice game yesterday. Secondary is still bad, yes, but Burnett was out. I can't even imagine what OBJ is going to do to them in 2 weeks. Need Sam Shields back! Run defense best in the league so far. |
Author: | FavreFan [ Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
The run defense does look legitimately good, which is encouraging. I like Blake Martinez. |
Author: | Kirkwood [ Mon Sep 26, 2016 12:27 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Zizou wrote: Classic McCarthy era win yesterday; jump out to a big lead early, get conservative, and eke out a victory. I think Lacy is hitting the holes a lot faster than he was last year. He had a nice game yesterday. Secondary is still bad, yes, but Burnett was out. I can't even imagine what OBJ is going to do to them in 2 weeks. Need Sam Shields back! Run defense best in the league so far. Does McCarthy have any say on defense? I legit have no idea. McCarthy's offense only had 3 series to score in the 2nd half which they did once with the FG. |
Author: | Kirkwood [ Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:27 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
More and more I'm getting sick of Rodgers' act. This diva bitch needs to start pointing the thumb instead of the finger. Missed wide open Cobb for a shitty fade: https://vine.co/v/5rMxFFUb2lX More missed open throws: I'm getting sick of hearing it's the play-calling when Princess Aaron Munn is worried more about his interception rates than throwing the ball. Let's go bitch boy |
Author: | 312player [ Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:36 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
That last still looks like he's rolling out from pressure, you want him to throw across his body on the move? Take Rogers off that team and they suck. |
Author: | good dolphin [ Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:38 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
I read a gossip piece the other day that Rogers is in an unhappy place because his former paramour is getting married. This is affecting his play over the past year. |
Author: | Kirkwood [ Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:42 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
312player wrote: That last still looks like he's rolling out from pressure, you want him to throw across his body on the move? Take Rogers off that team and they suck. Rodgers has all day. The guy "rolling" is the open receiver Davante Adams. The masquerade of being a heterosexual male has led a steady decline in performance. Deep down he knows he misses Kevin. |
Author: | Urlacher's missing neck [ Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
good dolphin wrote: I read a gossip piece the other day that Rogers is in an unhappy place because his former paramour is getting married. This is affecting his play over the past year. Kevin is getting married? Dammit. I have been callin for his return for over a year. http://totalpackers.com/2016/07/ah-aaro ... it-family/ That pretty much explains it all. |
Author: | leashyourkids [ Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:19 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Interesting article about Rodgers and Favre's relationship: http://thelab.bleacherreport.com/gunsli ... =editorial |
Author: | sjboyd0137 [ Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:21 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
leashyourkids wrote: Interesting article about Rodgers and Favre's relationship: http://thelab.bleacherreport.com/gunsli ... =editorial Agreed. Very good read. Not remotely surprised Favre is a jock boy alpha male, type. |
Author: | sinicalypse [ Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:33 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
hey while the thread is bumped, can one of you packer-backers/NFL-people tell me how your 2016 green bay packers are looking? i haven't had a chance to see them (nor do i have rodgers in any fantasy leagues) so i haven't really gotten a gauge on how good this year's team is. would i be correct in assuming that they're the usual ~(8-8 to 11-5) pretty/good team that isn't especially strong on either the offensive or defensive line, but when you have aaron rodgers and a returning jordy nelson it's theoretically possible that in any given year the packers can get some kind of running-game/o-line or defense whilst aa-rod goes HAM and they're legit contenders? we've pretty much assumed the packers are at least somewhat-legit contenders every year since their super bowl, but they typically come up short (even when 15-1) and therefore after their last game of the season packers post-game radio is chock full of callers bemoaning how anyone (especially management) could possibly think this team was good enough to contend. is that once again the case here, or is that just 100% fresh salt/butthurt and the packers are perennial legit/ish contenders? also btw idk if it was in this thread or another one, but i know i mentioned that the josh sitton thing was quite possibly racially charged (kaepernick/BLM/etc) and involving clinton ha ha-dix, but of course that was just *wanking motion* and total conjecture until bernstein got on the radio and said that [PROFESSIONAL WRITER] of [PROFESSIONAL SITE] said that there was possibly some sort of racial angle involving ha ha clinton dix, and therefore it was 100% OFFICIAL/LEGIT like bernstein said (even tho i'd bet that this journo dude just read/heard the same thing i did =) |
Author: | Zippy-The-Pinhead [ Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:55 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
sinicalypse wrote: hey while the thread is bumped, can one of you packer-backers/NFL-people tell me how your 2016 green bay packers are looking? i haven't had a chance to see them (nor do i have rodgers in any fantasy leagues) so i haven't really gotten a gauge on how good this year's team is. would i be correct in assuming that they're the usual ~(8-8 to 11-5) pretty/good team that isn't especially strong on either the offensive or defensive line, but when you have aaron rodgers and a returning jordy nelson it's theoretically possible that in any given year the packers can get some kind of running-game/o-line or defense whilst aa-rod goes HAM and they're legit contenders? So far their run defense has been absurdly good...but we're only 4 games in and that small of a sample size can be misleading. If they have similar results against Dallas then I will believe it. Their secondary should be a strength but has been inconsistent. The o-line has been very good and doesn't appear to miss Sitton. Lacey has been strong but now has a bum ankle. Rodgers has also been inconsistent. Throwing for tds at a decent rate but still missing open receivers. Hoping it's just a matter of gelling following Jordy's return. All in all I'd say they look like an 10-11 win team. If the defense is really this good and the offense begins to click they are a contender. As of now I'm not convinced that will happen.
we've pretty much assumed the packers are at least somewhat-legit contenders every year since their super bowl, but they typically come up short (even when 15-1) and therefore after their last game of the season packers post-game radio is chock full of callers bemoaning how anyone (especially management) could possibly think this team was good enough to contend. is that once again the case here, or is that just 100% fresh salt/butthurt and the packers are perennial legit/ish contenders? also btw idk if it was in this thread or another one, but i know i mentioned that the josh sitton thing was quite possibly racially charged (kaepernick/BLM/etc) and involving clinton ha ha-dix, but of course that was just *wanking motion* and total conjecture until bernstein got on the radio and said that [PROFESSIONAL WRITER] of [PROFESSIONAL SITE] said that there was possibly some sort of racial angle involving ha ha clinton dix, and therefore it was 100% OFFICIAL/LEGIT like bernstein said (even tho i'd bet that this journo dude just read/heard the same thing i did =) |
Author: | Zizou [ Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:25 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Looked real good yesterday despite the loss. But two dropped interceptions on Atlanta's last drive? Next three games are very winnable. |
Author: | FavreFan [ Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:50 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Zizou wrote: Looked real good yesterday despite the loss. But two dropped interceptions on Atlanta's last drive? Next three games are very winnable. I don't think they looked that good. I know they were down a lot of key players, but this is the exact same team we've seen several times over the last few years. They may win one playoff game, two tops, and then be bounced again. Something needs to change. |
Author: | good dolphin [ Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:38 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
And just like that Kirkwood returns to being a loser You had a nice couple of days |
Author: | Kirkwood [ Sun Nov 06, 2016 7:47 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
This team was given up on weeks ago. It's unwatchable. The beautiful Sundays have made skipping NFL very easy. |
Author: | good dolphin [ Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:44 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Not buying that. If this is the new normal for Rogers, this becomes a .500 team with an arrow pointing down for the future |
Author: | Kirkwood [ Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:57 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
It is. He's been bad for a year and half now. |
Author: | good dolphin [ Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:05 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
Better hope for another miracle draft |
Author: | Urlacher's missing neck [ Sun Nov 06, 2016 10:49 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
I think the players are fine but good god is MM one stubborn old sac of shit. Its been years now that you watch things work...and then you watch him do something completely the opposite the next series and miserably fail. You can tell Aaron hates him with a passion now. They need to lose....they need change...they are an arrogant and unlikeable organization right now. |
Author: | W_Z [ Sun Nov 06, 2016 11:04 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
my team is stuck in the same conundrum. |
Author: | leashyourkids [ Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:09 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
These fuckers are getting to be Bears-level bad. |
Author: | Kirkwood [ Mon Nov 14, 2016 8:49 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Green Bay Packers |
well, it was a good run. fire everyone. |
Page 23 of 28 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |