We're 4-2 and it's a new show
HOW MANY WINS DOES GB END UP WITH
We're 4-2 and it's a new show
HOW MANY WINS DOES GB END UP WITH
10-6 BH is traded in the offseason
FIFYQuote:
Originally Posted by Tony Oday
http://media.jrn.com/images/mjs-supe...r-mediaday.jpg
This is an interesting poll. 9 wins seems to be the EZ call. I almost didn't post it as an option to only leave the hard choices.....choosing 6-8 kind of implies we lack overall talent around the QB. Choosing 10 or more implies we have plenty of talen around on the team. At least that's how I interpret it. 9 wins to me is the ez and safe call.....basically we go .500 rest of way. I voted there.....not sure what I would have chosen if I HAD to pick 8 or 10-
10 wins...we go 10-6, win the division and Vikings Fans cry like the fake fans they are!
Assuming Rodgers is out rest of the season, 7-9 is my bet.
U do not have a low enough bar. Let's face facts, Rodgers is the heart and soul of the packers. Without him, we will struggle almost every game. I did not even vote, cause the season is too depressing already.
Back in September I predicted we'd end up with 9 wins. Now, with Arod out, I'm in the 6-8 wins category.
I predicted 9 wins in September mainly because of our defensive problems, which I didn't think MM and TT had solved in the off season. Plus, I was not convinced the O-line would hold up.
With the Packers wins and losses are always a factor of how much Arod can compensate and overcome the propensity of the defense to give up big plays. Our secondary is still porous and our pass rush is still anemic. Now, without Arod to compensate, I think we're more vulnerable than ever.
Who the hell is gonna beat us? I ask that question every year when trying to justify not predicting 16-0. Of course, that doesn't figure in the FRANCHISE getting injured. Even so, as I said the other day, we damn near beat the Vikings in Minny with Hundley green and shaky. He's obviously gonna get better, and virtually everybody we play going forward is not as good as the Vikings. Carolina is pretty good; Philadelphia is off to a hot start - probably not nearly as good as their early record; Pittsburgh probably is better than they have played up to now; I honestly don't even see them beating the Rodgers-less Packers - and we may not be Rodgers-less all season.
I'll take 11 in the poll, but I really don't see where the 3 other losses come from.
Oh ye of little faith. Hot Rod Hundley will come through.
you crack me up. The injuries outside Rodgers are a huge factor - gotta get some supporting cast back, or there will be blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
The poll is flawed, options are illegitimately restricted. I am sticking with my original prediction in the Predict Packers W/L poll started by Joe in September http://packerrats.com/showthread.php...in-Loss-Record: 5 wins for the season.
I think when I first hurriedly ran through the schedule and predicted a 9-7 finish, I had Seattle, Atlanta, Dallas and Minnesota beating us in the 1st 6 games. Arod saved our bacon against Dallas and Cinncinnati.Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
Who's gonna beat us from this point on? The Saints, Steelers, Detroit twice, Minnesota and the Panthers at home. That's 8 losses right there unless my math is off. All the teams above have great QB's except the Queens. But all these can be beaten with a great pass rush, a competent secondary and the ability to score 30 points or more a game. We've got little reliable pass rush, a leaky secondary and, now, no Arod to compensate for our banged up Oline and work his magic scoring points.
I'll be pleasantly surprised of course if I'm wrong. If Hundley turns out to be the second coming of Dak Prescott which you think he is, then all bets are off.
You're doing it wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by hoosier
https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/im...-077912799.jpg
You mean when he threw the pick six?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxie the Taxi
I'm somewhat surprised Tex isn't still predicting 16 wins.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxie the Taxi
I'm waiting until I see Hundley this weekend. He's clearly way better than Seneca the elder, and he is also showcasing himself for a future contract, but will the shoddy line and his inexperience make everything a shit show?
haha At my age all these games seem to run together...but didn't Arod engineer a last second TD to send the game into OT as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
I'm also wondering how Stubby will handle the situation. Will he turn Hundley loose and let him run when it's there, or will he be protective of him? Will he change the game plan to suit Hundley's talents, or expect Hundley to step in operate an Arod game plan, or have Hundley get the ball out quick and short or revert back to rushing the ball heavily.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadScientist
It will be interesting for sure.
You always expect some injuries. My point of view is that Aaron Rodgers is such a hugely important factor in the Packers success that pretty much no group of injuries of lesser players within reasonable expectation at all would derail the Packers. That is at least in part because of the general mediocrity of that supporting cast. In other words, to a great extent, the replacements that we do or don't get at this point aren't gonna make a helluva lot of difference one way or the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
Maybe that's contradictory with my prediction of continued success this season even without Aaron Rodgers. I'm not real concerned about that contradiction - this is a forum; opinion is what opinion is, no more, no less.
A lot of what Hundley will do will be based on the O-line.
He will have the green light to run, if it's there. I'm basing all my hopes on his TD pass play. That was Rodgers-esque. Head up while scrambling, always looking for the receiver to come open, last second pass after luring the defense to him. A thing of beauty. The *ahem* TD pass to Monty wasn't too bad either. Here's hoping a decent O-line will be there for him on Sunday.
I disagree with the general perception that the Packers are all mediocre except Rodgers.Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
Well, you're entitled to your opinion hahahahaha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxie the Taxi
Yeah, I don't see Hundley as that much worse than Prescott, especially considering that Prescott has a decent O Line in front of him, and Hundley does not, even disregarding injuries.
What we have - instead of all those deficiencies you mentioned on defense - is an excellent coordinator who is a master of scheming and compensation.
You make a great case for negativity - here and in FYI hahahahaha. Sorry, I prefer the Pollyanna point of view.
And I disagree with your disagreement - personnel-wise anyway. Hundley. though, has to be one of the best backup QBs in the league - or at least he was when he was a backup.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
One need only look to San Diego or New Orleans to see the difference.
But no one will believe it.
Your assessment of Hundley as best back up is based on what exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
I don't believe it, if you are saying the only difference between the two squads is the QB.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
except regarding the roster outside RodgersQuote:
Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker
Rodgers first full year as a starter, he went 6-10 (0.375 Winning %) with a relatively talentless squad being rebuilt due to inflated salaries. However, due to injuries, Hundley is probably dealing with similar talent on the field. I predict 8-8 to finish which would give Hundley a 0.400 finish. Slightly better than Rodgers's first year starting because I expect players to heal and bring talent back to the field.
do I have to do everything? :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Smidgeon
http://prod.static.packers.clubs.nfl..._1280_1024.jpg
No, the difference is the other franchises stink out loud for multiple years with possible/probably HoF QBs and the Packers are in the playoffs every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
But to Packer fans, its only due to luck that Thompson stumbled onto Rodgers that they succeed.
oh, that makes sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by pbmax
Yeah I was confused by that too. However, how then do you account for 2013, when after the Rodgers injury the team did indeed play at a stink-out-loud level? Was the 2013 talent all that different from 2012 and 2014?
They might have beat Atlanta, too, if he hadn't practically handed them 14 points.Quote:
Originally Posted by mraynrand
There was a collection of injuries that year too, including Matthews (you had a hurt Mulumba and Jones as your OLB after Neal got hurt in the playoffs too) EDS at center and Barclay at RT.Quote:
Originally Posted by hoosier
But probably the two most critical issues: 1) the backup QB was not good. Flynn got hot one half (Dallas) and 2) team spirit - when you lose a league MVP and know your QB sucks, it brings everyone down - see Colts, 2011 for example.
This is why it will be so critical for Hundley to play reasonably well, and APRH.
That was kind of a fun year despite all of the losses. They had several close games where I felt like they were close to breaking through.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smidgeon
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by denverYooper