Official Packers vs. Patriots Discussion Thread

[pbmax]

They [Dallas] can run the ball - they do run the ball; and we [Packers] cannot. The only way we can run the ball is by using the pass to set up the run... the Cowboys are good enough that they don't have to do that, they can simply line up and run it down your throat more often than not... they just had a bad game yesterday.

Using these assumptions, please explain the end of the Vikings game please. Specifically, the last 3:32.

[wist43]

Using these assumptions, please explain the end of the Vikings game please. Specifically, the last 3:32.

Years of ineptitude is trumped by 5 good runs, lol...

You guys are such a hoot

[Fritz]

Years of ineptitude is trumped by 5 good runs, lol...

You guys are such a hoot

Here's your exact quote, Wist:

"The only way we can run the ball is by using the pass to set up the run..."

Notice your word choice: the "only" way. You didn't say, except sometimes they do it. You said "only," and when someone calls you on it, you excuse it as the exception and fall back on your usual namecalling - we're all "homers."

So if you don't mean "only," then don't choose that word.

You argue, over and over again, that you are spot-on correct in your analysis. Any evidence counter to your ideas you excuse as irrelevant, or so occasional as to not count, or sheer luck. Like your infamous claim that the whole 2010 SB run was luck.

So you're always right because you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions.

And you talk about other people being unrealistic.

[wist43]

Here's your exact quote, Wist:

"The only way we can run the ball is by using the pass to set up the run..."

Notice your word choice: the "only" way. You didn't say, except sometimes they do it. You said "only," and when someone calls you on it, you excuse it as the exception and fall back on your usual namecalling - we're all "homers."

So if you don't mean "only," then don't choose that word.

You argue, over and over again, that you are spot-on correct in your analysis. Any evidence counter to your ideas you excuse as irrelevant, or so occasional as to not count, or sheer luck. Like your infamous claim that the whole 2010 SB run was luck.

So you're always right because you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions.

And you talk about other people being unrealistic.

Like I said... years of ineptitude is erased with 1 instance in which they ran for a 1st down - and this is what you guys hang your hat on??

In a court of law circumstantial evidence can be dismissed if it is thread bare and does not amount to weight. The weight in this case however, is on my side of the argument - it is you guys who are in denial.

In terms of running the ball, we can't consistently do it b/c of philosophical reasons; and in terms of stopping the run, the same is true. When the coaching staffs on either side of the ball get their heads of out their asses, i.e. MM incorporates some power running plays, and dunderdummy gets away from his beloved 2-4 and actually schemes an effort to hold down the LOS - then we can at least be average on both sides of the ball; but that doesn't happen very often, does it??

It is you guys who are trying to defend the blind squirrel.

[smuggler]

So you're always right because you dismiss anything that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions.

Modern political strategy ITT; Who cares if it works, so long as it fits my team's ideology!!

[wist43]

Modern political strategy ITT; Who cares if it works, so long as it fits my team's ideology!!

The example of being able to run for a couple of 1st downs at the end of the Viking game is an outlier - outliers are just that, and have to be dismissed. They are called outliers b/c they lie outside the set of observed data that give you your trend and are therefore unreliable and invalid.

[ThunderDan]

Years of ineptitude is trumped by 5 good runs, lol...

You guys are such a hoot

Lacy 25 for 125 yards. 11 rushing first downs in the game. 5 good runs my ass!