Results 1 to 20 of 97

Thread: Official Packers vs. Lions Discussion Thread

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Sugadaddy Rat HOFer Zool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Across the border to the West
    Posts
    13,320
    Quote Originally Posted by wist43 View Post
    Megatron is Megatron, and Stafford is a damn good QB. He can be up and down, but when he's on?? He'll light us up good... and Golden Tate is a very good WR2.

    Add to their DL their LB's. I like Levy a lot... he's turned into a very good, very tough player. Their front seven as a whole is light years better than our - good enough to make the difference.

    Yes they are a flawed team - but so are we. So there it is - who can mask their weaknesses, and take advantage of their strengths best is who will win. In their place?? I like them to beat us in a high scoring game.

    Sans the Kool-aid, outside of Homerland?? That is a common take on this game.
    Golden Tate is a mediocre #2 receiver IMO. Seattle let him walk without much of a struggle and they aren't exactly stacked at WR. Their #3 is Jeremy Ross? I'd take all of the Packers WRs over the Lions' except Johnson. Stafford is good, but not Rodgers good. Reggie Bush is who we've seen for 6-7 years now. Decent runner, good receiver. I'd take the GB RB group there, but not by much.

    Hard to compare 3-4 (2-5, 1-6, amoeba...whatever) LBs to a 4-3 but as a group it's close I suppose. Give the Packers a good MLB and it's not nearly as close.

    Packers secondary is better. I'm not sure even Lions fans would argue that.

    You put a lot of stock in a team's Dline so that's probably your line of thinking on the matter?

  2. #2
    Skeptical Rat HOFer wist43's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    11,777
    Quote Originally Posted by Zool View Post
    Golden Tate is a mediocre #2 receiver IMO. Seattle let him walk without much of a struggle and they aren't exactly stacked at WR. Their #3 is Jeremy Ross? I'd take all of the Packers WRs over the Lions' except Johnson. Stafford is good, but not Rodgers good. Reggie Bush is who we've seen for 6-7 years now. Decent runner, good receiver. I'd take the GB RB group there, but not by much.

    Hard to compare 3-4 (2-5, 1-6, amoeba...whatever) LBs to a 4-3 but as a group it's close I suppose. Give the Packers a good MLB and it's not nearly as close.

    Packers secondary is better. I'm not sure even Lions fans would argue that.

    You put a lot of stock in a team's Dline so that's probably your line of thinking on the matter?
    Their DL habitually bitch-slaps our OL ballarina dancers - that is a huge, huge problem for us.

    All other things being pretty equal - yes, that is probably the difference.
    wist

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by wist43 View Post
    Their DL habitually bitch-slaps our OL ballarina dancers
    The Packer OL is not soft

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Harlan Huckleby View Post
    The Packer OL is not soft
    That's true. See sig.

  5. #5
    CutlerquitRat HOFer
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Woodbury Mn
    Posts
    7,711
    Quote Originally Posted by wist43 View Post
    Their DL habitually STOMPS our OL ballarina dancers - that is a huge, huge problem for us.

    All other things being pretty equal - yes, that is probably the difference.
    There I fixed it, then they get the boot from the game and we still win.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •