6 DOWN 10 TO GO---TAKE TWO---HOW MANY WINS DOES GB END UP WITH

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

10-18-2017, 09:38 AM
Maxie the Taxi

Quote:

Originally Posted by mraynrand

You mean when he threw the pick six?

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?
10-18-2017, 09:44 AM
Maxie the Taxi

Quote:

Originally Posted by MadScientist

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?

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.

It will be interesting for sure.
10-18-2017, 10:02 AM
texaspackerbacker

Quote:

Originally Posted by mraynrand

you crack me up. The injuries outside Rodgers are a huge factor - gotta get some supporting cast back, or there will be blood.

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.

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.
10-18-2017, 10:02 AM
mraynrand

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.
10-18-2017, 10:03 AM
mraynrand

Quote:

Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker

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.

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.

I disagree with the general perception that the Packers are all mediocre except Rodgers.
10-18-2017, 10:18 AM
texaspackerbacker

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maxie the Taxi

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.

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.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion hahahahaha.

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.
10-18-2017, 10:20 AM
texaspackerbacker

Quote:

Originally Posted by mraynrand

I disagree with the general perception that the Packers are all mediocre except Rodgers.

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.
10-18-2017, 10:21 AM
pbmax

One need only look to San Diego or New Orleans to see the difference.

But no one will believe it.
10-18-2017, 10:31 AM
mraynrand

Quote:

Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker

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.

Your assessment of Hundley as best back up is based on what exactly?
10-18-2017, 10:32 AM
mraynrand

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbmax

One need only look to San Diego or New Orleans to see the difference.

But no one will believe it.

I don't believe it, if you are saying the only difference between the two squads is the QB.
10-18-2017, 10:32 AM
mraynrand

Quote:

Originally Posted by texaspackerbacker

Sorry, I prefer the Pollyanna point of view.

except regarding the roster outside Rodgers
10-18-2017, 10:33 AM
Smidgeon

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.
10-18-2017, 10:36 AM
mraynrand

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgeon

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? :)

http://prod.static.packers.clubs.nfl..._1280_1024.jpg
10-18-2017, 10:46 AM
pbmax

Quote:

Originally Posted by mraynrand

I don't believe it, if you are saying the only difference between the two squads is the QB.

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.

But to Packer fans, its only due to luck that Thompson stumbled onto Rodgers that they succeed.
10-18-2017, 11:06 AM
mraynrand

Quote:

Originally Posted by pbmax

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.

But to Packer fans, its only due to luck that Thompson stumbled onto Rodgers that they succeed.

oh, that makes sense.
10-18-2017, 11:14 AM
hoosier

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?
10-18-2017, 11:17 AM
denverYooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by mraynrand

You mean when he threw the pick six?

They might have beat Atlanta, too, if he hadn't practically handed them 14 points.
10-18-2017, 11:24 AM
mraynrand

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoosier

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?

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.

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.
10-18-2017, 11:24 AM
denverYooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smidgeon

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.

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.
10-18-2017, 11:25 AM
mraynrand

Quote:

Originally Posted by denverYooper

They might have beat Atlanta, too, if he hadn't practically handed them 14 points.

:)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page