T1B

That the Packers will repeat as Superbowl Champions. I don't think so.....

They don't run the ball or can't, and their defense is suspect. They are the one dimensional pre-2011 Colts. Tough teams with good defenses like SF, Chicago, Pittsburgh, & Baltimore if they remember to take their Geritol, can go toe to toe with them.

Joe in PB wrote:They don't run the ball or can't, and their defense is suspect. They are the one dimensional pre-2011 Colts. Tough teams with good defenses like SF, Chicago, Pittsburgh, & Baltimore if they remember to take their Geritol, can go toe to toe with them.

You are just flat assed wrong across the board. Their defense has a +11 turnover differential. The yards they give up are meaningless. All that defense has to do is give the offense a couple extra opportunuties per game and they do that. None of the teams on your list can outscore the Packers

Who gives a fat, fucking rat cock about a running game? They're averaging 102 yards a game which is more than enough considering they have one of the most efficient passing attacks in NFL history. They lead the league in every meaningful passing category; passer rating (129.1), completion percentage (72.8 ) and touchdowns (28).

You might want to update your football philosophy there, caveman. The running game is meaningless in a championship context and has been for years. If you want to win a championship in the 21st century you have to be able to pass and defend the pass.

Yes, they are a cut above the rest, but short term memory is forgetting the Saints game in which the Pack defense was torched for a lot of yards and points. New Orleans can hang with the Packers and they nearly pulled the upset off in Lambeau, so I'm not going to crown them unbeatable just yet. I have to see more from that defense. Just because they shut down a rookie QB at home on MNF doesn't mean the defense is fixed.

Turnovers have been a huge part of their success, but I'm curious to see if their defense can make a big stop when the offense is human for once. We'll see.

Sure, there's some doubt. Anything can happen. That's why they play the games.

:wink:

KC Scott wrote:I'd put Aaron Rodgers in the Peyton category - if he were to go down, that team would flame out faster than AP at a Victoria Secret clearance sale

No, they wouldn't. With all those weapons on offense? Are you high? Sure they wouldn't be as efficient, but they would definitely be competitive.

Come January in Lambeau I would want a running attack and not rely so much on the passing game.

So yes, they are beatable. Any given Sunday a team is beatable, well except the team playing the Colts.

mvscal wrote:

KC Scott wrote:I'd put Aaron Rodgers in the Peyton category - if he were to go down, that team would flame out faster than AP at a Victoria Secret clearance sale

No, they wouldn't. With all those weapons on offense? Are you high? Sure they wouldn't be as efficient, but they would definitely be competitive.

They've played fairly well with Matt Flynn but Rodgers is obviously so much better. I'd compare it more to when Brady went down and Cassel almost got the Pats to the playoffs. The Packers are so far ahead of everyone...Rodgers getting hurt would level playing field but they'd still be a playoff team. What they lose in passing, they'll just turn to the run game, which they don't really need to use at this point.

I think their defense is getting slighted...they're giving up so many yards in garbage time when they're way ahead but they're 9th in lowest completion percentage allowed. Plus, they're second in turnover margin. That was one of the best defenses last year and it's basically the same team except Nick Collins being hurt. They're not elite but they're definitely good enough. Rodgers is the league MVP but it's not a bunch of chumps around him.

DallasFanatic wrote:Come January in Lambeau I would want a running attack and not rely so much on the passing game.

Another myth. Even in the Ice Bowl back in the Stone Age of NFL football, it was Bart Starr's passing that won the game. The Packers had 191 passing yards versus 80 rushing yards with 2 passing TDs and 1 TD rushing. The Cowboys outrushed the Packers in that game but they lost because they couldn't stop the most clutch postseason passer in NFL history.

KC Scott wrote:

mvscal wrote:

KC Scott wrote:I'd put Aaron Rodgers in the Peyton category - if he were to go down, that team would flame out faster than AP at a Victoria Secret clearance sale

No, they wouldn't. With all those weapons on offense? Are you high? Sure they wouldn't be as efficient, but they would definitely be competitive.

What weapons are those?

I'll spot you Greg Jennings

The Packers have the best and deepest receiving corps in football. There isn't even a close second.

Greg Jennings
Jordy Nelson
Jermichael Finley
James Jones
Donald Driver

Yep. Also, take a good look at GB's weapons. It's not merely Rodgers. All his people are making play after play. He has a nearly unstoppable TE who spent most of last year on the IR. Driver, Jennings, Nelson...Grant, Suhe...these guys make life easy for Rodgers, just as he rolls out the red carpet for them.

Picture in your mind's eye all the easy drops and blown assignments by GB's receivers. Not a whole lot of them, are there? In a league where we routinely see cripple TDs slip through the arms of wide-open receivers who are focused more on the post-catch celebration rather than securing the ball and finishing the play, GB's pass-catchers seem to convert every time. When Rodgers only has a tiny window through which to fit a timely arrow, his receivers routinely make those difficult hands-only catches.

Yes, he has myriad weapons, and they're firing on all cylinders. In converting not merely the routine but the exceptional plays, the Packer offense is making this look a whole lot easier than it ever should.

KC Scott wrote:As a team the Pack ranks third in passing behind Pats and Saints

Not in any meaningful statistic. The Packers lead in passer rating, passing TDs and completion percentage.

Aside from Jennings none are gamebreakers

I guess you didn't watch the Superbowl last year or any of the postseason for that matter.

I didn't say they wouldn't miss a beat without Rodgers. What I said is that they wouldn't be 0-9.

The Colts are a one man team. The Packers aren't. They would be in the mix even without Rodgers. Would you like to move the goalposts on your original statement some more?

they only run the ball for appearance sake, not because they have to. Rodgers can pretty much name how many yards and TDs he wants to throw for before the opening kick and there's not a damn thing anybody can do to stop it.

shoot, they only punt or kick FGs occasionally for appearance sake.

I tend to agree that GB would be mediocre w/o Aaron Rodgers and that SF would've been mediocre without Joe Montana.

~MA

KC Scott wrote:No moving goal posts here.....

Liar.

they would be...looking at 8-8 or worse

KC Scott wrote:I'd put Aaron Rodgers in the Peyton category - if he were to go down, that team would flame out faster than AP at a Victoria Secret clearance sale

The Packers are a playoff team without Rodgers. They're a Superbowl team with him. You first said that the Packers would fold like Colts and now you've walked that back to 8-8.

War Wagon wrote:SF would've been mediocre without Joe Montana.

~MA

Really? Just "mediocre" with players like Jerry Rice, Roger Craig, Ronnie Lott, Eric Wright and Dwight Clark not to mention an all star coaching staff?

mvscal wrote:

Joe in PB wrote:They don't run the ball or can't, and their defense is suspect. They are the one dimensional pre-2011 Colts. Tough teams with good defenses like SF, Chicago, Pittsburgh, & Baltimore if they remember to take their Geritol, can go toe to toe with them.

You are just flat assed wrong across the board. Their defense has a +11 turnover differential. The yards they give up are meaningless. All that defense has to do is give the offense a couple extra opportunuties per game and they do that. None of the teams on your list can outscore the Packers

Who gives a fat, fucking rat cock about a running game? They're averaging 102 yards a game which is more than enough considering they have one of the most efficient passing attacks in NFL history. They lead the league in every meaningful passing category; passer rating (129.1), completion percentage (72.8 ) and touchdowns (28).

You might want to update your football philosophy there, caveman. The running game is meaningless in a championship context and has been for years. If you want to win a championship in the 21st century you have to be able to pass and defend the pass.

While I understand the Pack is favored to win it all, and they look great, your response is fuckin' laughable. It was only a few years ago the Patriots were undefeated going into the Superbowl, and what happened? The heavily under dogged Giants beat them, with a balanced attack & great defense. Add another team that can give GB a run for their money, not to mention NE was quite a bit further as undefeated.

The Texans are dominating this season with the run, running is when the oline can attack, & an offense imposing their will on a defense will never get old.

KC Scott wrote:I'd put Aaron Rodgers in the Peyton category - if he were to go down, that team would flame out faster than AP at a Victoria Secret clearance sale

You know absolutely nothing about talent. Green Bay's defense has the talent to adjust to being more of a force in stopping teams if they knew Flynn was at the helm. Capers is letting these guys take chances because of Rodgers and sometimes they're getting burned and other times they are creating turnovers. Additionally, James Starks/Ryan Grant is better than Joseph Addai/Donald Brown.

The Colts defense was built to only be on the field for a limited time and have speed rushers from the ends create pressure on passing downs. That entire team was built around Manning and the way he ran the offense. As for Green Bay, they were not built around Aaron Rodgers. Jennings, Driver, Grant, and Finley were already there before Rodgers was named starter. Rodgers is no doubt an amazing QB, but Green Bay's nucleus on both sides of the ball would continue to compete if Matt Flynn were taking every snap.

Additionally, James Starks/Ryan Grant is better than Joseph Addai/Dominic Rhodes.

Show me the stats that prove it. Total yards from the LoS per season. I have a feeling you'll be eating your words.

Competing and winning the division are two different things.

Joe in PB wrote:

Additionally, James Starks/Ryan Grant is better than Joseph Addai/Dominic Rhodes.

Show me the stats that prove it. Total yards from the LoS per season. I have a feeling you'll be eating your words.

Competing and winning the division are two different things.

You're missing the main point here, buddy. Scott was comparing Green Bay losing Rodgers to Indy losing Manning. Are the Colts competing without Manning? I don't think so. Would Green Bay compete without Rodgers? Yes. Would they make it to the playoffs? I think they'd be on the bubble. You see how that comparison doesn't fly?

Matt Flynn has gotten better and better each year. He was almost good enough to beat New England last year when Rodgers was out. Packers could easily go 10-6 with Flynn under center. They have plenty of talent all over the field. Super Bowl champs with 15 guys on IR. Flynn will be starting for somebody next year.

Go Coogs' wrote:You're missing the main point here, buddy. Scott was comparing Green Bay losing Rodgers to Indy losing Manning.

In a thread originally about whether or not GB would repeat this year... I think this argument is pretty much useless.

"GB won't repeat if Aaron Rogers goes down." Epic take.... hit the showers (lift/steam optional.)

KC Scott wrote:Goob / Coog

I've got $20 that says the Packers Don't win the Super Bowl this season.

In?

No. Defense still has too many questions.

KC Scott wrote:Goob / Coog

I've got $20 that says the Packers Don't win the Super Bowl this season.

In?

What are you talking about? Reread my first post, numbnuts. I said Green Bay is not unbeatable, so why would I take that bet?

What we're discussing is your comparison of a Rodgers-less Packers crash and burning like the Colts did without the services of Manning. You're wrong. Green Bay has much more talent than Indy.

I certainly don't think that they are unbeatable and The Thanksgiving Day game @ Detroit will be a challenge. I do think that they are playing well and the only thing that matters is that they have more points than the other team @ the end of the game.
Keep these ridiculous meaningless stats for Fantasy Fagball!