i'm thinking at least 4. they'd be mostly dead then. not enough consistency on either side of the ball. the trend has been to fall behind early and that's iocane against a good team. 3 or fewer...it would take a miracle.
i'm thinking at least 4. they'd be mostly dead then. not enough consistency on either side of the ball. the trend has been to fall behind early and that's iocane against a good team. 3 or fewer...it would take a miracle.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
I, too, am a pessimist, for in a system designed to keep the downtrodden down, hope is but an illusion.
However, it is worth noting that in 2012, the Packers were 2-3 when they visited the undefeated Texans down there yonder in ole hillbilly Texas, and the Packers managed to annihilate the Texans in hippie fashions.
Beat them damn St. Louis Rams, and we all might as well get our fire ready, cos if the Pack can beat the Rams, no reason they can’t proceed all the way to the lost city of Atlanta and burn it to the ground (again) on Super Bowl Sunday.
2 loses to the Pats and Rams.
Swede: My expertise in this area is extensive. The essential difference between a "battleship" and an "aircraft carrier" is that an aircraft carrier requires five direct hits to sink, but it takes only four direct hits to sink a battleship.
The way they've been playing, 1 win at best. If the bye week helps the team extract their heads from their asses, they could get 2.
Last edited by MadScientist; 10-22-2018 at 10:23 AM.
Fire Murphy, Gute, MLF, Barry, Senavich, etc!
Only loss is to the Rams....and that is a close one.
C.H.U.D.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
By this point in my life as a Packer fan, especially in the last ten years or so, I think it's pretty clear how this will go:
After the off week, the Packers put in an impressive performance against the Rams. They might lose a close one, they might hang for a while and get blown out, and if they do lose, then . . .
They'll go to NE on the heels of despair and beat the Pats at home.
OR, if they do somehow upset the Rams, they'll then lose to the Pats at home.
Got it so far?
They'll then be 4-3-1, and people will cling to hope. Then they'll beat the Dolphins at home, going 5-3-1, and people will start talking about this team making a run. Seattle will look fairly mediocre, and people will be confident.
Then they'll go out to Seattle and lose, then compound that by losing to the Vikes.
So there we will all be, with a 5-5-1 team. And that will be what they are.
"The Devine era is actually worse than you remember if you go back and look at it."
KYPack
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Swede: My expertise in this area is extensive. The essential difference between a "battleship" and an "aircraft carrier" is that an aircraft carrier requires five direct hits to sink, but it takes only four direct hits to sink a battleship.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Sheeeeesh! What a bunch of negativists!
Are you guys seriously that down on the Packers? Or do you just not have the balls to come out and express optimism?
What could be more GOOD and NORMAL and AMERICAN than Packer Football?
It's called being a realist, you know for the purpose in engaging in dialogue rooted in reality. Most people, like myself, prefer that in a sports forum. I'm not sure why you think it's great and courageous to just blindly say the Packers should go 16-0, or that the Badgers are going to win every game by 40 each season. Its not.
For the Record I think the Pack wins 2 of the next 5.