Aaron Rodgers -- Hurt or just playing very poorly thus far

[Partial]

Since I like the Rasta man we don't need to see his thread messed up anymore.

I'm really tired of people making excuses for poor performances from the QB. Rodgers has looked like hell for most of this season thus far, and I have a theory to why that is. He's either A) hurt, or B) regressing.

I think this because:

1. His long ball has been really inaccurate lately. This pass has historically been the strongest part of his game. This season it has been a weakness for him.

2. Inaccuracy on basically every other route. It seems like every ball is either low or high, rarely hitting the receiver in the hands.

3. Catchability of the ball. The receivers have never had a case of the dropsies prior to ARod taking over, yet all of a sudden are dropping boat loads of passes. Could it be the ball is wobbling too much, or maybe thrown too hard, or possibly too high/low, etc?

To counter the point of injury, Rodgers looks:

1. Far too comfortable in the pocket. Since he settled down in the second half of the Bears game, he has been holding onto the ball way too long and taking too many sacks/hits. An injured player would want to avoid the hit one would think.

2. A willingness to run and have contact. A hurt QB would likely dance out of bounds instead of bringing on contact.


That said, Rodgers, while not making any mistakes, has made one play this year. I'll give credit where credit is due and say he sucked for 95% of the Chicago game but was lights out when it mattered and that is what's important. Had he played even alright throughout the game though, he wouldn't have needed heroics and the offense have never should have put the D in that position. That said, these things happen and kudos for making the play when it mattered.

Beyond the one pass, though, he has looked very poor imo. Sure, the OL hasn't been great and the play calling has left a lot to be desired, but part of being a star is making things happen. I don't see a star at QB for us, any longer.

I still do not understand why he didn't throw the ball away against Cinci. Throwing the ball to the 10 with 3-4 Bengals defenders behind the receiver is foolish. Even if they got a play off (which they did), what are the odds of the play being successful without a huddle and everyone getting a chance to calm down and get on the same page. They false started, which is just one of the many things that is likely to go wrong in that situation. He should have let the play develop and hit the streaking White Knight down the sideline, or he should have thrown the ball away and lived to fight another day

One can say "The ref held the ball too long" blah blah blah. You have to account for these things as it is foolish and ignorant to assume everything is going to go right. I will give you that if everything went absolutely perfect, than they could have spiked it and lived to fight another day. What are the odds of everything going perfect? Very, very small when you're coordinating 11 of your own guys, 5ish refs, and 11 defenders. Too big of a risk imo.

[mission]

He's just playing very, very poorly...

To answer your question, of course.

[Partial]

He's just playing very, very poorly...

To answer your question, of course.

I also think Jennings was hurt badly the first two weeks and is finally regaining his confidence. He did next to nothing other than get a lucky break on the final ball the first two games.

That said, I appreciate your honesty and willing to accept that maybe this guy isn't the end all be all, and has been basically just a guy this year (as I have been saying all along, though I'm more sold on him now after the PS but he is reverting to his old way, I do know he has more talent than I gave him credit for, though, but he still has to tap into that during the RS to be a golden god).

[Bossman641]

He's just playing very, very poorly...

To answer your question, of course.

I also think Jennings was hurt badly the first two weeks and is finally regaining his confidence. He did next to nothing other than get a lucky break on the final ball the first two games.

I've been thinking the same thing regarding GJ. Not hurt badly, but it would not surprise me at all if he has a nagging injury. He doesn't look like the same guy out there, not as quick or precise in his routes.

[Waldo]

He did next to nothing other than get a lucky break on the final ball the first two games.

Aaron intended to throw him the ball, and Greg intended to catch it.

Seems more like "good execution" than luck.

Every instance of good play can be glossed over as luck, and our team looks like absolute shit. Just lucky.

[boiga]

I'm very confused as to what bad play you are referring to, Partial.

Rodgers was our entire offense against the Rams. He completed 6 perfect long balls, risked his body on a couple of scrambles, and carried the team on his arm.

How could an inaccurate QB have delivered a ball so perfectly to Driver that he snagged it, literally, with one arm behind his back?

How high are your expectations that this seems like bad play to you?

[Partial]

He did next to nothing other than get a lucky break on the final ball the first two games.

Aaron intended to throw him the ball, and Greg intended to catch it.

Seems more like "good execution" than luck.

Every instance of good play can be glossed over as luck, and our team looks like absolute shit. Just lucky.

That's true, but given the consistent level of poor execution the past few games, it seems that the rare outburst of quality execution is more luck than anything.

[PackerTimer]

One play. Your argument has absolutely no merit based on that statement alone.

Give it a rest, we all know how you feel. He just made plays in the Rams game. The long passes to Driver and Jennings and Nelson were all plays and were good accurate deep throws.

You do not have a leg to stand on with this argument. Rodgers hasn't played great to start the year but he also has not played miserably. So far he's led us to a 2-1 start. Despite what you want to say, he's actually the only guy on offense really making plays.

[Tony Oday]

I think AR is playing great in the shooting gallery.

Though I do not see either Favre or AR making it through the year with their lines...I could see the police arresting both O lines for accompliss to murder in the 1st.

[SkinBasket]

I guess Partial was goaded into this one too?

:roll:

[Chevelle2]

Seriously, Partial and a couple other guys are not even Packer fans, and should either hit up a Favre forum or a Vikings forum.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think AR is playing great in the shooting gallery.

Though I do not see either Favre or AR making it through the year with their lines...I could see the police arresting both O lines for accompliss to murder in the 1st.

+1

Maybe not great, but I'll take 2 wins and 0 interceptions after 3 games with the play of the OL (both run blocking and pass protecting). I'm hopeful this is just another season of poor OL play to start the year. I'm getting tired of it, but hopefully it turns around like it has the last few years.

Vince Young would have this team at 3-0.

[Partial]

Seriously, Partial and a couple other guys are not even Packer fans, and should either hit up a Favre forum or a Vikings forum.

I haven't mention Favre. What does he have to do with anything? His performance has nothing to do with how I rate Rodgers.

[Sparkey]

Stop :beat: you :bs: I am sick of all the :bs2:

[swede]

If I would concede the point that Aaron Rodgers is playing poorly, would you also concede that anyone ranked lower than him statistically is also playing poorly?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=PASSING&season=2009&seasonType=REG

Check out the quarterbacks ranked #7 and #8. Their statistics are quite similar.

[MadtownPacker]

Seriously, Partial and a couple other guys are not even Packer fans, and should either hit up a Favre forum or a Vikings forum.Who bitch? The big hype game is this week and we gotta talk about it. Find your ass a knitting forum if you want some peaceful discussion.

[Gunakor]

For everything AR has had to deal with, from horrible protection to receivers not getting open, he is one of only 3 starting quarterbacks not to have thrown an interception through the first 3 games. His QB rating is nearly 100. A few QB's have one more victory under his belt this seaon than Aaron has. No QB has two more.

While he has things he needs to improve on, just as the rest of the team does, there's a reason the national media doesn't share your pessimistic view of our QB situation. He hasn't performed THAT poorly. But you wouldn't realize that he wasn't performing THAT poorly if you won't look at the things he's done RIGHT so far this season. For someone so spoiled by years of HOF caliber QB play it might be tough, with such lofty expectations and all. But give it a shot. Hell, you might even surprise yourself.

[MadtownPacker]

I think last year and the preseason might have made those expectation higher.

[Partial]

If I would concede the point that Aaron Rodgers is playing poorly, would you also concede that anyone ranked lower than him statistically is also playing poorly?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=PASSING&season=2009&seasonType=REG

Check out the quarterbacks ranked #7 and #8. Their statistics are quite similar.

Don't care about stats in this case. He is playing okay but not what is expected given the firepower of the offense as a sum of parts.

[Partial]

For everything AR has had to deal with, from horrible protection to receivers not getting open, he is one of only 3 starting quarterbacks not to have thrown an interception through the first 3 games. His QB rating is nearly 100. A few QB's have one more victory under his belt this seaon than Aaron has. No QB has two more.

While he has things he needs to improve on, just as the rest of the team does, there's a reason the national media doesn't share your pessimistic view of our QB situation. He hasn't performed THAT poorly. But you wouldn't realize that he wasn't performing THAT poorly if you won't look at the things he's done RIGHT so far this season. For someone so spoiled by years of HOF caliber QB play it might be tough, with such lofty expectations and all. But give it a shot. Hell, you might even surprise yourself.

That's because 3 games have only been played. That's not fair at all.

National media doesn't watch the games. He has played pretty bad thus far. For all the picks Cutty has thrown, he is making plays like a fiend. Two come back wins on a team without any quality offensive talent outside of him, Knox and the returner. And the RB, he is great too.

[mission]

I was being sarcastic as usual.

He's not lights out and has definitely held the ball too long at times but he hasn't turned the ball over and he's played well when it mattered.

Would I love to see him play better? Absolutely. But that's going to come down to having time to make some plays and I think the line will be getting tighter as the year goes on.

[Gunakor]

For everything AR has had to deal with, from horrible protection to receivers not getting open, he is one of only 3 starting quarterbacks not to have thrown an interception through the first 3 games. His QB rating is nearly 100. A few QB's have one more victory under his belt this seaon than Aaron has. No QB has two more.

While he has things he needs to improve on, just as the rest of the team does, there's a reason the national media doesn't share your pessimistic view of our QB situation. He hasn't performed THAT poorly. But you wouldn't realize that he wasn't performing THAT poorly if you won't look at the things he's done RIGHT so far this season. For someone so spoiled by years of HOF caliber QB play it might be tough, with such lofty expectations and all. But give it a shot. Hell, you might even surprise yourself.

That's because 3 games have only been played. That's not fair at all.

National media doesn't watch the games. He has played pretty bad thus far. For all the picks Cutty has thrown, he is making plays like a fiend. Two come back wins on a team without any quality offensive talent outside of him, Knox and the returner. And the RB, he is great too.

It's only 3 games in, you're right. And yet 29 other quarterbacks have already thrown that first interception already. Rodgers isn't one of them. I'd say it's very fair to mention that at this point.

[SkinBasket]

Rodgers could be the 3rd rated QB in the league right now if most of those drops were caught. Even the slight overthrow to Driver in the endzone this week still hit him in the goddamn hands.

As it is, he's 7th despite having a 56.7 completion percentage. If only 6 of those drops stay in the hands of our "receivers" he's at 63% and in line with the rest of the top QBs in the league. And maybe he has another TD or 2. And maybe we wouldn't have senseless fucking threads like this each week.

[The Shadow]

Rodgers has been playing poorly?
When?

[mraynrand]

This thread blows

[Tony Oday]

3 50 yard + bombs to Jennings=big plays

scrambling for a TD = big play

scrambling for 1st downs = big plays

no picks = big plays

He is having a good year. projecting out to 3500 yards and 21 TDs...not HOF but a good solid year...would we ALL like more? HELL YEAH! but I like not turning the ball over.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He is having a good year. projecting out to 3500 yards and 21 TDs...not HOF but a good solid year...would we ALL like more? HELL YEAH! but I like not turning the ball over.

Technically, he's on pace for 3808 yards, 21 TDs, 0 interceptions, and 469 rushing yards. And 10+ wins.

[Tony Oday]

He is having a good year. projecting out to 3500 yards and 21 TDs...not HOF but a good solid year...would we ALL like more? HELL YEAH! but I like not turning the ball over.

Technically, he's on pace for 3808 yards, 21 TDs, 0 interceptions, and 469 rushing yards. And 10+ wins.

yes Technically :)

[red]

its very obvious that you're either not watching the games, or your just trying to stir shit

rodgers throws are very crisp and almost always right where they need to be, with maybe a couple exceptions a game

i'd say most of his drops, not all, but most have been placed right where they needed to be. they were not high, or low or behind. balls have been bouncing off guys hands and chests

being in the pocket while its caving in around you is called poise, its what you dream of your qb's having

what i've seen through 3 games is a line that cannot get it done, which means we have less targets to throw to and also means the recievers that do go out are getting blanketed

there is nowhere for grant to run, so teams can gear up for the pass. they showed many replays yesterday and there was absolutely no place for rodgers to throw to


one thing i did notice and agree on is that it looks like all the hits he's taking are starting to get to him. the long passes were thrown too short causing the wr's to slow up for the ball. this is something he's never had problems with until the regular season started and he started getting killed


i would also like to see MM work with him to run the ball after a couple seconds if no one is open. it seems the o line is letting the d rush into the backfield, rodgers steps up to avoid the sack, and then no one can get open. then he sits and waits. i'd like to see him take off. this might keep a lb or 2 out of coverage and maybe open up the passing game

i paid more attention to the o-line yesterday, and they are really really bad right now. i think its obvious that this is the root of our problems

[falco]

Don't care about stats in this case.

By "in this case," he means when they contradict him.

[SkinBasket]

Don't care about stats in this case.

By "in this case," he means when they contradict him.

Or at least until he finds some stats he thinks back him up. Then those will be unassailable.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Nothing more to see in this thread. It's done as it's a silly premise.

[sheepshead]

This thread blows

yup

[PlantPage55]

Aaron is doing as well as ANY QB could with this line. He is making his share of mistakes, to be sure. But there aren't very many more plays out there for us to make, given how out of sync every facet of our offense has been,

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h2Me8fvn0DQ/SMGyo2l0gwI/AAAAAAAAAsM/FsvTMxVwge8/S660/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

[falco]

well guys, which one is it?

does this thread suck, or blow?

[Partial]

Don't care about stats in this case.

By "in this case," he means when they contradict him.

Or at least until he finds some stats he thinks back him up. Then those will be unassailable.

Not really. I don't think it's unreasonable to ignore his stats as they're pretty good despite him looking very poor. While there is something to be said for controlling the ball, I ultimately think Cutler will be the better QB despite his knack for throwing INTs.

[Brandon494]

stupid thread, just because AR isnt throwing 3 TDs a game he is not struggling? He has a 98 passing rating so far this season with ZERO INTs behind a piece of crap O-line.

[Sactopackfan]

Dude, seriously stop with this fucking nonsense. How many different threads do you need to say the same shit? Day after day, give it up man. :roll:

[Partial]

*sigh*. You guys just don't get it. Same thing as last year. Offense scores a few points and screws over the D. Guaranteed this D is worn out again by week 8 'cause of the O.

[falco]

Guaranteed

:lol:

[red]

Dude, seriously stop with this fucking nonsense. How many different threads do you need to say the same shit? Day after day, give it up man. :roll:

agreed

it gets old

[Bossman641]

Don't care about stats in this case.

By "in this case," he means when they contradict him.

Or at least until he finds some stats he thinks back him up. Then those will be unassailable.

Not really. I don't think it's unreasonable to ignore his stats as they're pretty good despite him looking very poor. While there is something to be said for controlling the ball, I ultimately think Cutler will be the better QB despite his knack for throwing INTs.

How many Bear games have you watched?

[Partial]

Don't care about stats in this case.

By "in this case," he means when they contradict him.

Or at least until he finds some stats he thinks back him up. Then those will be unassailable.

Not really. I don't think it's unreasonable to ignore his stats as they're pretty good despite him looking very poor. While there is something to be said for controlling the ball, I ultimately think Cutler will be the better QB despite his knack for throwing INTs.

How many Bear games have you watched?

Two.

[Partial]

Guaranteed

:lol:

Why wouldn't they? They were last year.

[falco]

Guaranteed

:lol:

Why wouldn't they? They were last year. :lol:

[Fritz]

Y'know, I felt kinda bad from time to time when it seemed like people were piling on to Partial or egging him on.

Not any more.

He likes it! Hey Mikey!

[MJZiggy]

I don't know if any of y'all were LISTENING to the game, but they quoted some guy named Donald Driver who said that the drops this season were due to a lack of focus on the receivers' part and not the passes that were thrown...

Maybe that clarifies things for you, 'cause I hear this Driver dude knows some stuff about football.

[pbmax]

2008 Time of Possession: 31:37 Packers 28:56 Opponents

2009 Time of Possession: 27:49 Packers 32:10 Opponents

Not like 2008, when we won the battle despite playing poorly on D.

But in 2009, as its only 3 games in, this can change quickly. Especially since the first two games were against reasonably good defenses.

And since the Packers are +8 turnovers, they are not giving up the short field to the opposition.

[vince]

*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.
Right Parsh. Everyone is clueless and you are the sole source of supreme football analysis. Apparently, your venerable analyst McGinn doesn't get it either, and those defensive players playing against the Packers this week are clueless too damn it!

...the performance of Aaron Rodgers and deep threats Greg Jennings and Donald Driver probably brought back memories for Rams fans of the vast firepower their team had not that long ago.

"They have a great quarterback and he's a great leader," Rams defensive tackle Clifton Ryan said. "We saw him on film all week. No matter how hard you're rushing them, he's going to find a way to kill you. He did that today. He's a hell of a player. . . a hell of a player."

Although Rodgers passed for 269 yards, it wasn't like he had receivers running wide open. Spagnuolo, who two seasons ago as the New York Giants' defensive coordinator shut down Tom Brady and the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl, has three good cover cornerbacks and generally had them in position.

The crux of the matter, according to 12th-year defensive end Leonard Little, was Rodgers' pinpoint accuracy.

"A lot of times we had a DB right on (the receiver)," said Little. "And he threw it in the right spot. He did a real good job."

[packerbacker1234]

Look, AR hasn't been great. You can say what you want about AR "carrying the team" against the rams... BUT IT'S THE RAMS. He completed 3 Long balls, not 5 (as someone suggested) and he overthrew two others. Naturally, you can't hit "every" long ball, but his misses? So far this year every missed throw on the long ball was a guarenteed TD pass. Every one of them. Yeah, he hit 3 good long balls in the game against the rams, but were any of them as good as the two he missed on? On two he missed, the WR's were gone. Float them the ball and bam, TD.

Look, AR is not a bad QB, but I do think all of us have gotten too high on him too soon. He isn't perfect, and I am starting to think this whole "lack of turning it over" is showing a "lack of taking a chance". It's easy to throw a ball deep to a 1 on 1 guy, minimal risk. It's a lot different on 3rd and 6 and just eating a sack or throwing it away. IT's fine doing that now and then, but every time?

AR isn't a "great" QB yet, but he's above average. He just... seems to be missing something. I can't pinpoint what it is, but he is definitely missing something.

[vince]

You're way off man. Rodgers isn't average. He's "playing very poor." You just don't get it. He's killing our defense.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Look, AR is not a bad QB, but I do think all of us have gotten too high on him too soon. He isn't perfect, and I am starting to think this whole "lack of turning it over" is showing a "lack of taking a chance". It's easy to throw a ball deep to a 1 on 1 guy, minimal risk.
That's called good decision making. You want him to start throwing high risk passes which could lead to a pick? Well then you'd be bitching about he's not making good decisions and throwing into poor situations.

He's not a high-risk taking QB, get over it.

[SkinBasket]

*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, we know. We'll never be as smart or insightful as you. It breaks our stupid little hearts.

[mmmdk]

Rodgers has been playing poorly?
When?

I don't get it either. A-Rod has been our offense the first 3 weeks.

[mmmdk]

I don't know if any of y'all were LISTENING to the game, but they quoted some guy named Donald Driver who said that the drops this season were due to a lack of focus on the receivers' part and not the passes that were thrown...

Maybe that clarifies things for you, 'cause I hear this Driver dude knows some stuff about football.

Amen!

[packerbacker1234]

Look, AR is not a bad QB, but I do think all of us have gotten too high on him too soon. He isn't perfect, and I am starting to think this whole "lack of turning it over" is showing a "lack of taking a chance". It's easy to throw a ball deep to a 1 on 1 guy, minimal risk.
That's called good decision making. You want him to start throwing high risk passes which could lead to a pick? Well then you'd be bitching about he's not making good decisions and throwing into poor situations.

He's not a high-risk taking QB, get over it.

How many wins has MR Rodgers gotten with his present decision making. Holding on to the ball too long, not willing to take "any" chances, and thus forcing our defense on the field all game. How man wins? 8 out of 20? Look, I like Rodgers, and safe decisions are fine. It will always keep you in the game: But how long are we going to Rely on Mr. Woodson picking off hte ball for our offense to score points? I don't think our defense is as bad as people make it out to be. The fact remains: They are always on the field. This punting business is getting old. Yeah, maybe he takes a chance and gets picked, or maybe he takes a chance and something happens. Hell, even Manning and Brady take more "chances" they AR.

The guy holds on to the ball when he shouldn't. He's good, he's better then I expected, but he is handcuffing the team almost as much as the OL is. I mean, say what you want on how he IS the offense, then step back and start looking at how many points our DEFENSE has SET UP the offense to get, then get back to me.

[cheesner]

Look, AR is not a bad QB, but I do think all of us have gotten too high on him too soon. He isn't perfect, and I am starting to think this whole "lack of turning it over" is showing a "lack of taking a chance". It's easy to throw a ball deep to a 1 on 1 guy, minimal risk.
That's called good decision making. You want him to start throwing high risk passes which could lead to a pick? Well then you'd be bitching about he's not making good decisions and throwing into poor situations.

He's not a high-risk taking QB, get over it.

How many wins has MR Rodgers gotten with his present decision making. Holding on to the ball too long, not willing to take "any" chances, and thus forcing our defense on the field all game. How man wins? 2 out of 3? Look, I like Rodgers, and safe decisions are fine. It will always keep you in the game: But how long are we going to Rely on Mr. Woodson picking off hte ball for our offense to score points? I don't think our defense is as bad as people make it out to be. The fact remains: They are always on the field. This punting business is getting old. Yeah, maybe he takes a chance and gets picked, or maybe he takes a chance and something happens. Hell, even Manning and Brady take more "chances" they AR.

The guy holds on to the ball when he shouldn't. He's good, he's better then I expected, but he is handcuffing the team almost as much as the OL is. I mean, say what you want on how he IS the offense, then step back and start looking at how many points our DEFENSE has SET UP the offense to get, then get back to me.
Fixed.

I am considering when AR has had a defense that provided support and didn't give up easy last minute come from behind wins (this year).

I think AR can play better than he has in the first 3 games. I think it is a matter of the OL not giving him the protection he needs and it has him rattled a bit. He has played well given that and hopefully he picks things up. This is only his 2nd year starting and I don't think people remember how long it has taken for past Packer legendary QBs to become good. The last one, (what was his name?) was only so-so after 3 or 4 years. I remember when he became a FA and only got one offer and that was from NO. No other teams even pursued him. He wasn't that good. He became great. And AR is much better at this point in his career.

[vince]

This punting business is getting old.
I guess to some, any time a team punts, it gets old. Here are facts. The Packers are ranked 11th in the league thus far in fewest punts. They'll likely be in the top 10 after Dallas and Carolina catch up in games played tonight. No turnovers for Rodgers. Surely you don't expect a touchdown every possession...

[packerbacker1234]

I am considering when AR has had a defense that provided support and didn't give up easy last minute come from behind wins (this year).

Oh, so your considering the defense that has set up half our points, verses a offense that can score consistently without that.

My bad.

[Waldo]

Look, AR hasn't been great. You can say what you want about AR "carrying the team" against the rams... BUT IT'S THE RAMS. He completed 3 Long balls, not 5 (as someone suggested) and he overthrew two others. Naturally, you can't hit "every" long ball, but his misses? So far this year every missed throw on the long ball was a guarenteed TD pass. Every one of them. Yeah, he hit 3 good long balls in the game against the rams, but were any of them as good as the two he missed on? On two he missed, the WR's were gone. Float them the ball and bam, TD.

Look, AR is not a bad QB, but I do think all of us have gotten too high on him too soon. He isn't perfect, and I am starting to think this whole "lack of turning it over" is showing a "lack of taking a chance". It's easy to throw a ball deep to a 1 on 1 guy, minimal risk. It's a lot different on 3rd and 6 and just eating a sack or throwing it away. IT's fine doing that now and then, but every time?

AR isn't a "great" QB yet, but he's above average. He just... seems to be missing something. I can't pinpoint what it is, but he is definitely missing something.

:shock:

You have seen Brett Favre play football, correct?

He completed just as many passes to the opposition as he did to his own team when he went deep.

Hove you forgotten the wind-up gasp?

I believe that AR was the only QB to average more than a 50% completion % on bombs last season.

[Waldo]

I am considering when AR has had a defense that provided support and didn't give up easy last minute come from behind wins (this year).

Oh, so your considering the defense that has set up half our points, verses a offense that can score consistently without that.

My bad.

But those set ups also took away offensive drives where we could have otherwise scored.

There is a reason for the saying "turnovers win games".

[packerbacker1234]

Look, AR hasn't been great. You can say what you want about AR "carrying the team" against the rams... BUT IT'S THE RAMS. He completed 3 Long balls, not 5 (as someone suggested) and he overthrew two others. Naturally, you can't hit "every" long ball, but his misses? So far this year every missed throw on the long ball was a guarenteed TD pass. Every one of them. Yeah, he hit 3 good long balls in the game against the rams, but were any of them as good as the two he missed on? On two he missed, the WR's were gone. Float them the ball and bam, TD.

Look, AR is not a bad QB, but I do think all of us have gotten too high on him too soon. He isn't perfect, and I am starting to think this whole "lack of turning it over" is showing a "lack of taking a chance". It's easy to throw a ball deep to a 1 on 1 guy, minimal risk. It's a lot different on 3rd and 6 and just eating a sack or throwing it away. IT's fine doing that now and then, but every time?

AR isn't a "great" QB yet, but he's above average. He just... seems to be missing something. I can't pinpoint what it is, but he is definitely missing something.

:shock:

You have seen Brett Favre play football, correct?

He completed just as many passes to the opposition as he did to his own team when he went deep.

Hove you forgotten the wind-up gasp?

I believe that AR was the only QB to average more than a 50% completion % on bombs last season.

Who can forget the wind up gasp? I am not asking him to be #4. I am talking pure decision wise: When deciding to throw a ball there are some easy reads: A guy is open, beat the defender, guy has half a step and needs a well placed ball, guy has tight one on one coverage. In this case, when you glance deep and see 1 on 1, it's easier to decide to throw it. You trust your WR will minimaly break it up if he can't catch it.

I mean, this year his deep ball is irradic. Sure, he has a nice percentage, but he is MISSING on the wide open ones. THe Zero risk throw. He throws better it seems when he has a small risk factor then when he has none on those deep balls.

I was more or less using the deep 1 on 1 decision as a comparison to needing to throw a perfect ball for just a first down to keep a drive alive... instead of taking a sack and throwing it away. I mean, at some point it's more then just being "safe".

[Waldo]

You can't expect a guy to be money on every throw of 50 yards.

He tends to miss long, only on rare occasions he misses short.

Brett missed short. That is right where the recently burned DB is.

Only one QB has completed more 40+ passes than AR this year. Peyton Manning.

He's tied with Romo and Rivers

[Iron Mike]

well guys, which one is it?

does this thread suck, or blow?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h7qGmw8uoqs/SWA7r0Ipk4I/AAAAAAAAHQU/L_6JVTJkyTQ/s320/spaceballs_large_15.jpg

[mmmdk]

well guys, which one is it?

does this thread suck, or blow?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h7qGmw8uoqs/SWA7r0Ipk4I/AAAAAAAAHQU/L_6JVTJkyTQ/s320/spaceballs_large_15.jpg

That hoover maid spaceship thing is gonna blow...

[packerbacker1234]

I am considering when AR has had a defense that provided support and didn't give up easy last minute come from behind wins (this year).

Oh, so your considering the defense that has set up half our points, verses a offense that can score consistently without that.

My bad.

But those set ups also took away offensive drives where we could have otherwise scored.

There is a reason for the saying "turnovers win games".

Or it ends in a punt. We have 16 punts in 3 games, so on average 5 drives a game end in a punt. 5. There is more then likely a chance that the 2 or so time shte defense sets up points that it ends in a punt then our offense drives the field.

[Partial]

*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.
Right Parsh. Everyone is clueless and you are the sole source of supreme football analysis. Apparently, your venerable analyst McGinn doesn't get it either, and those defensive players playing against the Packers this week are clueless too damn it!

...the performance of Aaron Rodgers and deep threats Greg Jennings and Donald Driver probably brought back memories for Rams fans of the vast firepower their team had not that long ago.

"They have a great quarterback and he's a great leader," Rams defensive tackle Clifton Ryan said. "We saw him on film all week. No matter how hard you're rushing them, he's going to find a way to kill you. He did that today. He's a hell of a player. . . a hell of a player."

Although Rodgers passed for 269 yards, it wasn't like he had receivers running wide open. Spagnuolo, who two seasons ago as the New York Giants' defensive coordinator shut down Tom Brady and the New England Patriots in the Super Bowl, has three good cover cornerbacks and generally had them in position.

The crux of the matter, according to 12th-year defensive end Leonard Little, was Rodgers' pinpoint accuracy.

"A lot of times we had a DB right on (the receiver)," said Little. "And he threw it in the right spot. He did a real good job."

You live and die on the deep ball you're going to kill your D. We're getting clobbered in TOP despite dominating the turnover battle. That's not good.

Being able to play small ball and control the clock were what made the second half of 2007 special. Even then, the D still was gased by the end of the year.

[Partial]

Rodgers has been playing poorly?
When?

I don't get it either. A-Rod has been our offense the first 3 weeks.

LOL what offense? This was the first game with any semblance of an offense. How quickly we forget!

[The Shadow]

Rodgers has been playing poorly?
When?

I don't get it either. A-Rod has been our offense the first 3 weeks.

LOL what offense? This was the first game with any semblance of an offense. How quickly we forget!

Well, to me, Rodgers has looked very good - esp considering how often he is getting pressure in his face.
NO interceptions? Coming up clutch in pressure time with a winning bomb against your biggest rival?
I will take that kind of 'poor play' any day of the week!

[mmmdk]

Rodgers has been playing poorly?
When?

I don't get it either. A-Rod has been our offense the first 3 weeks.

LOL what offense? This was the first game with any semblance of an offense. How quickly we forget!

A-Rod is playing the McCarthy version of Raider ball pretty well even though it sucks to play deep.

WTF is so LOL about that?

[get louder at lambeau]

*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, we know. We'll never be as smart or insightful as you. It breaks our stupid little hearts.

:lol:

There's someone like Partial on every forum. Lucky us.

[packerbacker1234]

Rodgers has been playing poorly?
When?

I don't get it either. A-Rod has been our offense the first 3 weeks.

LOL what offense? This was the first game with any semblance of an offense. How quickly we forget!

Well, to me, Rodgers has looked very good - esp considering how often he is getting pressure in his face.
NO interceptions? Coming up clutch in pressure time with a winning bomb against your biggest rival?
I will take that kind of 'poor play' any day of the week!

He played maybe the worst game of his career against our biggest rival: Thank the defense and the 4 int's for winning that game, not the bomb to win it. I mean fuck, we were in position to get the ball in the endzone without going deep. We actually had a drive going... surprisingly. He didn't play all that well against Cincy until late. Defense was responsible for us scoring 2/3rds of our point sin that game until 2 minutes were left. I mean, defense didn't play well, but if they didn't score a TD and set up another at the 5, it's like 38 to 7 instead of 38-30 or whateve rit was.

Last week: Offense put up a TD quick, then sort of fizzled. It went away until about 3 to 4 minutes into the 4th, and even then it was reliant on completeing a couple deep balls more then having sustained drives against the worst team in the NFL.

AR hasn't played well, and you can say what you want about the OL - some of those sacks are on Rodgers and he has admitted to that. He said sometimes he is not making the right Line calls and occasionaly may be holding on to it too long.

[falco]

Last week: Offense put up a TD quick, then sort of fizzled. It went away until about 3 to 4 minutes into the 4th, and even then it was reliant on completeing a couple deep balls more then having sustained drives against the worst team in the NFL.

Ahh, now it makes sense. You don't even watch the games! If you did, you would have known that we scored two TDs on 80+ yard drives in the first half.

[Partial]

Rodgers has been playing poorly?
When?

I don't get it either. A-Rod has been our offense the first 3 weeks.

LOL what offense? This was the first game with any semblance of an offense. How quickly we forget!

A-Rod is playing the McCarthy version of Raider ball pretty well even though it sucks to play deep.

WTF is so LOL about that?

You cannot undo 2 weeks of horrible O with one solid (not spectacular) outting against the JV team of the NFL. It doesn't work like that.

[Partial]

Last week: Offense put up a TD quick, then sort of fizzled. It went away until about 3 to 4 minutes into the 4th, and even then it was reliant on completeing a couple deep balls more then having sustained drives against the worst team in the NFL.

Ahh, now it makes sense. You don't even watch the games! If you did, you would have known that we scored two TDs on 80+ yard drives in the first half.

He's completely right. Where did we have any drives showing that we can win a cold game at Soldier field in the snow? None. We haven't shown that this season. They won't win when it matters if they don't learn to play "small ball".

[mmmdk]

Last week: Offense put up a TD quick, then sort of fizzled. It went away until about 3 to 4 minutes into the 4th, and even then it was reliant on completeing a couple deep balls more then having sustained drives against the worst team in the NFL.

Ahh, now it makes sense. You don't even watch the games! If you did, you would have known that we scored two TDs on 80+ yard drives in the first half.

Wasn't it three quick FGs and two 80+ yard drives...ah, just kidden...I saw the game!

[packerbacker1234]

Last week: Offense put up a TD quick, then sort of fizzled. It went away until about 3 to 4 minutes into the 4th, and even then it was reliant on completeing a couple deep balls more then having sustained drives against the worst team in the NFL.

Ahh, now it makes sense. You don't even watch the games! If you did, you would have known that we scored two TDs on 80+ yard drives in the first half.

He's completely right. Where did we have any drives showing that we can win a cold game at Soldier field in the snow? None. We haven't shown that this season. They won't win when it matters if they don't learn to play "small ball".

Thats the point. At no point did I feel we had this game in hand, and the Rams suck. Offense looks worse then it did last year.

[vince]

I agree that Rodgers has held on to the ball too long on some occassions in my opinion. Bart Starr did that quite often too, rather than force the ball and turn it over. Not that Rodgers has anywhere near the accolades of Starr, but it's not such a bad quality. It has kept the team in the game and in position to win in the end, which it has twice and came pretty close the third.

It's funny how some people criticise a guy as being too conservative for keeping his team in position to win by not turnign the ball over - and at the same time criticise him for not sustaining drives when he comes up big with explosive plays that win games.

[SkinBasket]

*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, we know. We'll never be as smart or insightful as you. It breaks our stupid little hearts.

:lol:

There's someone like Partial on every forum. Lucky us.


Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

[falco]

Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

its not the size of your post count, its how you use it.

[mmmdk]

I agree that Rodgers has held on to the ball too long on some occassions in my opinion. Bart Starr did that quite often too, rather than force the ball and turn it over. Not that Rodgers has anywhere near the accolades of Starr, but it's not such a bad quality. It has kept the team in the game and in position to win in the end, which it has twice and came pretty close the third.

It's funny how some people criticise a guy as being too conservative for keeping his team in position to win by not turnign the ball over - and at the same time criticise him for not sustaining drives when he comes up big with explosive plays that win games.

Phil Simms really sucked too...not! 8-)

[vince]

Thats the point. At no point did I feel we had this game in hand, and the Rams suck. Offense looks worse then it did last year. The offensive line certainly looks worse than it did last year. There's no excuse for that. The receivers have dropped more balls than they did last year. There's no excuse for that either. I think Nelson has more drops than catches so far this year.

[falco]

Thats the point. At no point did I feel we had this game in hand, and the Rams suck. Offense looks worse then it did last year. The offensive line certainly looks worse than it did last year. There's no excuse for that. The receivers have dropped more balls than they did last year. There's no excuse for that either. I think Nelson has more drops than catches so far this year.

We've definitely got a lot of question marks. I still think this is a team that hits its stride by mid-season.

[packerbacker1234]

I agree that Rodgers has held on to the ball too long on some occassions in my opinion. Bart Starr did that quite often too, rather than force the ball and turn it over. Not that Rodgers has anywhere near the accolades of Starr, but it's not such a bad quality. It has kept the team in the game and in position to win in the end, which it has twice and came pretty close the third.

It's funny how some people criticise a guy as being too conservative for keeping his team in position to win by not turnign the ball over - and at the same time criticise him for not sustaining drives when he comes up big with explosive plays that win games.

Because you can't expect to throw the deep ball to score all the time. I mean, there is something to be said about not taking any risks too - it's called being afraid to turn it over. Turnovers happen, you can't be afraid of them and Rodger's may be too afraid, as he doesn't want to be known as a Favre type.

But, Favre is known for one thing despite his picks: He puts points on the board. That is why he has been so good for so long despite the picks (which he ironically doesn't throw really at much fo a greater rate then anyone else). Rodgers looked phenominal in preseason and yeah had his "moments against the rams (3 bombs)", but he also seems too conservative at times. Sometimes it is good to take a sack, other times you might have missed your window, or were so afraid of a turnover you wouldn't even be willing to give your WR a chance.

I mean, not turning it over is a great way to "stay" in games. THats what San Fran does. Being afraid to turn it over is also not going to make your offense great either. It's harder to defend a guy who is willing to throw it all over. Gets the defense on there heals.

[mmmdk]

"get louder at lambeau" is a name to take seriously; Packer fans gotta get louder at Lambeau!

I welcome you and your notion.

[falco]

I agree that Rodgers has held on to the ball too long on some occassions in my opinion. Bart Starr did that quite often too, rather than force the ball and turn it over. Not that Rodgers has anywhere near the accolades of Starr, but it's not such a bad quality. It has kept the team in the game and in position to win in the end, which it has twice and came pretty close the third.

It's funny how some people criticise a guy as being too conservative for keeping his team in position to win by not turnign the ball over - and at the same time criticise him for not sustaining drives when he comes up big with explosive plays that win games.

Because you can't expect to throw the deep ball to score all the time. I mean, there is something to be said about not taking any risks too - it's called being afraid to turn it over. Turnovers happen, you can't be afraid of them and Rodger's may be too afraid, as he doesn't want to be known as a Favre type.

But, Favre is known for one thing despite his picks: He puts points on the board. That is why he has been so good for so long despite the picks (which he ironically doesn't throw really at much fo a greater rate then anyone else). Rodgers looked phenominal in preseason and yeah had his "moments against the rams (3 bombs)", but he also seems too conservative at times. Sometimes it is good to take a sack, other times you might have missed your window, or were so afraid of a turnover you wouldn't even be willing to give your WR a chance.

I mean, not turning it over is a great way to "stay" in games. THats what San Fran does. Being afraid to turn it over is also not going to make your offense great either. It's harder to defend a guy who is willing to throw it all over. Gets the defense on there heals.

I wouldn't put the words "Rodgers" and "conservative" in the same sentence.

[vince]

I think you're missing the boat when you say he's "afraid" to turn the ball over and misses opportunities. It has nothing to do with fear IMO and everything to do with being smart with the football to put your team in position to win the game.

You criticise Rodgers for playing poorly in the Bears game, yet his team won the game precisely because his opponent was not smart with the football - and lost the game because of it.

[falco]

I think you're missing the boat when you say he's "afraid" to turn the ball over and misses opportunities. It has nothing to do with fear IMO and everything to do with being smart with the football to put your team in position to win the game.

You criticise Rodgers for playing poorly in the Bears game, yet his team won the game precisely because his opponent was not smart with the football - and lost the game because of it.

Exactly - Rodgers isn't conservative - he just isn't reckless. You can't call someone conservative when they air it out several times a game.

[Cheesehead Craig]

Look, AR is not a bad QB, but I do think all of us have gotten too high on him too soon. He isn't perfect, and I am starting to think this whole "lack of turning it over" is showing a "lack of taking a chance". It's easy to throw a ball deep to a 1 on 1 guy, minimal risk.
That's called good decision making. You want him to start throwing high risk passes which could lead to a pick? Well then you'd be bitching about he's not making good decisions and throwing into poor situations.

He's not a high-risk taking QB, get over it.

How many wins has MR Rodgers gotten with his present decision making. Holding on to the ball too long, not willing to take "any" chances, and thus forcing our defense on the field all game. How man wins? 8 out of 20? Look, I like Rodgers, and safe decisions are fine. It will always keep you in the game: But how long are we going to Rely on Mr. Woodson picking off hte ball for our offense to score points? I don't think our defense is as bad as people make it out to be. The fact remains: They are always on the field. This punting business is getting old. Yeah, maybe he takes a chance and gets picked, or maybe he takes a chance and something happens. Hell, even Manning and Brady take more "chances" they AR.

The guy holds on to the ball when he shouldn't. He's good, he's better then I expected, but he is handcuffing the team almost as much as the OL is. I mean, say what you want on how he IS the offense, then step back and start looking at how many points our DEFENSE has SET UP the offense to get, then get back to me.
There's the whole bullshit argument about how it's ALL on a QB to win games and just ignore the rest of the team's performance. When you get a clue about football, then get back to me.

[The Shadow]

Rodgers has been playing poorly?
When?

I don't get it either. A-Rod has been our offense the first 3 weeks.

LOL what offense? This was the first game with any semblance of an offense. How quickly we forget!

Well, to me, Rodgers has looked very good - esp considering how often he is getting pressure in his face.
NO interceptions? Coming up clutch in pressure time with a winning bomb against your biggest rival?
I will take that kind of 'poor play' any day of the week!

He played maybe the worst game of his career against our biggest rival: Thank the defense and the 4 int's for winning that game, not the bomb to win it. I mean fuck, we were in position to get the ball in the endzone without going deep. We actually had a drive going... surprisingly. He didn't play all that well against Cincy until late. Defense was responsible for us scoring 2/3rds of our point sin that game until 2 minutes were left. I mean, defense didn't play well, but if they didn't score a TD and set up another at the 5, it's like 38 to 7 instead of 38-30 or whateve rit was.

Last week: Offense put up a TD quick, then sort of fizzled. It went away until about 3 to 4 minutes into the 4th, and even then it was reliant on completeing a couple deep balls more then having sustained drives against the worst team in the NFL.

AR hasn't played well, and you can say what you want about the OL - some of those sacks are on Rodgers and he has admitted to that. He said sometimes he is not making the right Line calls and occasionaly may be holding on to it too long.

What??
He PRODUCED when the game was on the line.
Perhaps you got used to a few wonderful plays during a game - and then that familiar fizzle when it was all on the line.
This is something new - a guy who gets it done under pressure.

[get louder at lambeau]

Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

its not the size of your post count, its how you use it.

That's what I keep trying to tell myself. :cry:

Thanks for the welcome, Skin, and mmmdk.

[Partial]

Rodgers has been playing poorly?
When?

I don't get it either. A-Rod has been our offense the first 3 weeks.

LOL what offense? This was the first game with any semblance of an offense. How quickly we forget!

Well, to me, Rodgers has looked very good - esp considering how often he is getting pressure in his face.
NO interceptions? Coming up clutch in pressure time with a winning bomb against your biggest rival?
I will take that kind of 'poor play' any day of the week!

He played maybe the worst game of his career against our biggest rival: Thank the defense and the 4 int's for winning that game, not the bomb to win it. I mean fuck, we were in position to get the ball in the endzone without going deep. We actually had a drive going... surprisingly. He didn't play all that well against Cincy until late. Defense was responsible for us scoring 2/3rds of our point sin that game until 2 minutes were left. I mean, defense didn't play well, but if they didn't score a TD and set up another at the 5, it's like 38 to 7 instead of 38-30 or whateve rit was.

Last week: Offense put up a TD quick, then sort of fizzled. It went away until about 3 to 4 minutes into the 4th, and even then it was reliant on completeing a couple deep balls more then having sustained drives against the worst team in the NFL.

AR hasn't played well, and you can say what you want about the OL - some of those sacks are on Rodgers and he has admitted to that. He said sometimes he is not making the right Line calls and occasionaly may be holding on to it too long.

What??
He PRODUCED when the game was on the line.
Perhaps you got used to a few wonderful plays during a game - and then that familiar fizzle when it was all on the line.
This is something new - a guy who gets it done under pressure.

Yeah he's had one come from behind victory in a 5 year career!

[HarveyWallbangers]

Yeah he's had one come from behind victory in a 5 year career!

Now, this is one that I found very funny.

Rodgers has 3 fourth quarter comebacks in 19 career starts. One every 6.3 starts.

Favre has 43 fourth quarter comebacks in 272 career starts. One every 6.3 starts.

[Partial]

Yeah he's had one come from behind victory in a 5 year career!

Now, this is one that I found very funny.

Rodgers has 3 fourth quarter comebacks in 19 career starts. One every 6.3 starts.

Favre has 43 fourth quarter comebacks in 272 career starts. One every 6.3 starts.


What? This was his first one against Chicago. I don't necessarily buy into 3, but yeah that is pretty funny.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think you're missing the boat when you say he's "afraid" to turn the ball over and misses opportunities. It has nothing to do with fear IMO and everything to do with being smart with the football to put your team in position to win the game.

You criticise Rodgers for playing poorly in the Bears game, yet his team won the game precisely because his opponent was not smart with the football - and lost the game because of it.

Exactly - Rodgers isn't conservative - he just isn't reckless. You can't call someone conservative when they air it out several times a game.

Did I just read this right. Did the person who talked about Rodgers relying on the deep ball too much then complain about him being too conservative? You can't make this stuff up.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What? This was his first one against Chicago. I don't necessarily buy into 3, but yeah that is pretty funny.

Detroit games last year.

[Willard]

well guys, which one is it?

does this thread suck, or blow?
Queef?

[Packerarcher]

I am not a Rodgers hater nor do I think he is all that great either. I love it when some of you start spewing stats when defending him. The only stat that matters is the one in the win column. If Rodgers keeps playing the way he has been that stat will be close to last years. Granted the line isn't great,but great QB's find a way to win.

[Partial]

What? This was his first one against Chicago. I don't necessarily buy into 3, but yeah that is pretty funny.

Detroit games last year.

Didn't the D have three picks? Chuck and Collins both housed them, right? I don't really count that for much as he let his team fall behind Detroit to begin with. Oye!

[packerbacker1234]

I think you're missing the boat when you say he's "afraid" to turn the ball over and misses opportunities. It has nothing to do with fear IMO and everything to do with being smart with the football to put your team in position to win the game.

You criticise Rodgers for playing poorly in the Bears game, yet his team won the game precisely because his opponent was not smart with the football - and lost the game because of it.

And then won the next two because of it.

[falco]

I think you're missing the boat when you say he's "afraid" to turn the ball over and misses opportunities. It has nothing to do with fear IMO and everything to do with being smart with the football to put your team in position to win the game.

You criticise Rodgers for playing poorly in the Bears game, yet his team won the game precisely because his opponent was not smart with the football - and lost the game because of it.

And then won the next two because of it.

Wait....the bears won the last two games because Cutler wasn't smart with the football???

:?:

[packerbacker1234]

I think you're missing the boat when you say he's "afraid" to turn the ball over and misses opportunities. It has nothing to do with fear IMO and everything to do with being smart with the football to put your team in position to win the game.

You criticise Rodgers for playing poorly in the Bears game, yet his team won the game precisely because his opponent was not smart with the football - and lost the game because of it.

And then won the next two because of it.

Wait....the bears won the last two games because Cutler wasn't smart with the football???

:?:

Cutler is pretty well known for gungslinging at this point in his career. What I meant was he is a risk taker, and it payed off the last two games.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What? This was his first one against Chicago. I don't necessarily buy into 3, but yeah that is pretty funny.

Detroit games last year.

Didn't the D have three picks? Chuck and Collins both housed them, right? I don't really count that for much as he let his team fall behind Detroit to begin with. Oye!

Detroit took the lead and Rodgers led the Packers on a drive to retake the lead. The defensive TDs were after Green Bay had taken the lead back on offense. The fourth quarter comeback stat is relatively meaningless in and of itself, but a lot of Brett's comebacks were of the same variety. Of Brett's 43 comebacks, how many were like the one he had this weekend? I'd guess under half of them.

BTW, this was the big play in the comeback in the first Detroit game (GB down 25-24 with 6:30 left):

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d80ad4a58/Aaron-Rodgers-Highlight-WK-02-vs-Lions-2008

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I think you're missing the boat when you say he's "afraid" to turn the ball over and misses opportunities. It has nothing to do with fear IMO and everything to do with being smart with the football to put your team in position to win the game.

You criticise Rodgers for playing poorly in the Bears game, yet his team won the game precisely because his opponent was not smart with the football - and lost the game because of it.

And then won the next two because of it.

Wait....the bears won the last two games because Cutler wasn't smart with the football???

:?:

Cutler is pretty well known for gungslinging at this point in his career. What I meant was he is a risk taker, and it payed off the last two games.

What is Cutler's career record? :lol:

You seriously gonna make the contention that in a 17-14 win against the Steelers, it was Cutler's gunslinging that made the difference.

[Partial]

What? This was his first one against Chicago. I don't necessarily buy into 3, but yeah that is pretty funny.

Detroit games last year.

Didn't the D have three picks? Chuck and Collins both housed them, right? I don't really count that for much as he let his team fall behind Detroit to begin with. Oye!

Detroit took the leads and Rodgers led the Packers on a drive to retake the lead. The defensive TDs were after Green Bay had taken the lead back on offense. The fourth quarter comeback stat is relatively meaningless in and of itself, but a lot of Brett's comebacks were of the same variety. Of Brett's 43 comebacks, how many were like the one he had this weekend? I'd guess under half of them.

Okay that is fair.

[Sparkey]

Rodgers has been playing poorly?
When?

I don't get it either. A-Rod has been our offense the first 3 weeks.

LOL what offense? This was the first game with any semblance of an offense. How quickly we forget!

Well, to me, Rodgers has looked very good - esp considering how often he is getting pressure in his face.
NO interceptions? Coming up clutch in pressure time with a winning bomb against your biggest rival?
I will take that kind of 'poor play' any day of the week!

He played maybe the worst game of his career against our biggest rival: Thank the defense and the 4 int's for winning that game, not the bomb to win it. I mean fuck, we were in position to get the ball in the endzone without going deep. We actually had a drive going... surprisingly. He didn't play all that well against Cincy until late. Defense was responsible for us scoring 2/3rds of our point sin that game until 2 minutes were left. I mean, defense didn't play well, but if they didn't score a TD and set up another at the 5, it's like 38 to 7 instead of 38-30 or whateve rit was.

Last week: Offense put up a TD quick, then sort of fizzled. It went away until about 3 to 4 minutes into the 4th, and even then it was reliant on completeing a couple deep balls more then having sustained drives against the worst team in the NFL.

AR hasn't played well, and you can say what you want about the OL - some of those sacks are on Rodgers and he has admitted to that. He said sometimes he is not making the right Line calls and occasionaly may be holding on to it too long.

What??
He PRODUCED when the game was on the line.
Perhaps you got used to a few wonderful plays during a game - and then that familiar fizzle when it was all on the line.
This is something new - a guy who gets it done under pressure.

Yeah he's had one come from behind victory in a 5 year career!

First off, this is only the start of his second year as a full time starter, so using the phrase "5 year career" is deceptive and you purposely phrased that way, which in and of its self is the definition of trolling on a message board.

You are the most annoying asshat on this forum. You are an arrogant son of a bitch who thinks his shit doesn't stink and when you contradict an ealier post of yours you throw out some more incoherent trash about something else to try and deflect.

I remember someone hear saying your passionate about your beliefs. That is great and everyone should be, BUT you change tune at the slightest change in the weather, so to speak.

To top it off, you use comebacks such as "game set and match...motherfu#&er" and then can not understand why so many posters get annoyed with your shit.

Really, Partial? That type of comment is something you would expect a 16 year old to use.

Maybe, and I actually hope that most of this is a type of sarcastic, smart-ass humor that works amongst regular friends because if you actually, truly post this shit because you believe it ?! Well, then, sir, you are a grade A, prime cut, assclown!!

[bobblehead]

If I would concede the point that Aaron Rodgers is playing poorly, would you also concede that anyone ranked lower than him statistically is also playing poorly?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?tabSeq=0&statisticCategory=PASSING&season=2009&seasonType=REG

Check out the quarterbacks ranked #7 and #8. Their statistics are quite similar.

Don't care about stats in this case. He is playing okay but not what is expected given the firepower of the offense as a sum of parts.

Would that be the same firepower that seems to drop every pass that hits them in the hands when no defender is near??

If you eliminate half the drops ARod is a complete stud so far. I do agree he holds onto the ball a bit long, but some if this is because MM is only sending out 3 recievers and it makes it tough to find a checkdown. We have barely had a running game to speak of...grant flat out stunk the first 2 weeks.

If we don't establish the run early monday night, we will lose badly. You can't let Allen and crew pin back the ears and come after ARod...he'll get killed. Run a fricking screem MM...PLEASE!!!

[PlantPage55]

You can't even argue with these god damn people. If Aaron Rodgers wins a Super Bowl as a Green Bay Packer, it will because of the amazing weapons he has and a defense that put him there. But Brett Favre single-handedly and miraculously aww-shucked his way to bringing the Packers into prominence and it had nothing to do with the #1 defense, the nice stable of offensive support, and ace special teams unit.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

its not the size of your post count, its how you use it.

That's what I keep trying to tell myself. :cry:

Thanks for the welcome, Skin, and mmmdk.

You may be on to something with your username. Regardless, I'm sitting here silently judging you. :D

[Partial]

I have decided that I'm going to discuss points on here only in a very civil manner and how I would talk to a person face to face from now on.

I realized last night the level of anxiety this site has caused me lately and that is not a good thing.

That said, I will do my best to keep things appropriate and civil. I hope you can all turn over a leaf with me and stop with the insults, etc.

[mraynrand]

To top it off, you use comebacks such as "game set and match...motherfu#&er" and then can not understand why so many posters get annoyed with your shit. That type of comment is something you would expect a 16 year old to use.



QFT

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/gamesetmatch-1.jpg

[Tarlam!]

Partial, since you are the main instigator, you'll need to demonstrate a lot of patience with the Rats that you've habitually been uncivilized with. Maybe an apology from you would be in order, even though some people owe you apologies, too.

Don't expect instant results from others, but demonstrate you mean what you say over an extended period. You know I have your back more than anyone here, so trust me when I say, you'll be held to your word and further ostracized if you fall into current habits.

I wish you the best of luck and I hope Rats will at least take a wait and see approach.

[vince]

That was very well said Tar, although I'm not sure any apologies are necessary. Time will tell who is really apologetic and who isn't.

Everyone is right sometimes and everyone is wrong sometimes, even though we all think we're right all the time. From my perspective, it will likely be the "I told you so"s, no matter how veiled in civility they may be, that will degrade the discourse in the future.

[Partial]

Partial, since you are the main instigator, you'll need to demonstrate a lot of patience with the Rats that you've habitually been uncivilized with. Maybe an apology from you would be in order, even though some people owe you apologies, too.

Don't expect instant results from others, but demonstrate you mean what you say over an extended period. You know I have your back more than anyone here, so trust me when I say, you'll be held to your word and further ostracized if you fall into current habits.

I wish you the best of luck and I hope Rats will at least take a wait and see approach.





Tarlam, I completely disagree with you. I put together a nice post with points and counter points.

Here are some of the comments I received numbered for you. I'm so tired of this garbage gang-up hazing behavior being tolerated.

I will certainly agree that I have been uncivilized to a small degree, but to be fair I've been provoked by an angry mob of people who do not share my opinions.

Is this fair? No, it's not. Should it be allowed? No, it should not. All of a sudden one day I went from a good, respected poster to the guy that everyone decided it was okay to completely disrespect. If someone disagrees with my opinions, then fine, but disrespecting me as a person is completely uncalled for and out of line. I'm so tired of it and this place in general.

Half of the things said about me would never be said to my face because it's inappropriate and out of line. Falco, ThunderDan, and Skin know that half of the crap they say on here they would never get away with in real life because they get a beer to the face quickly followed by a clenched fist. I'm so tired of it being okay to keep poking the fucking bear. It's not okay.

I would like to think that peoples' parent's did a better job raising them than that. That's certainly not me, I've snapped on a few times here due to constantly being provoked and ripped on personally, but I'm not an outright asshole consistently over and over and over again.











QFT

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/gamesetmatch-1.jpg



Helping or hurting?


26.




You are the most annoying asshat on this forum. You are an arrogant son of a bitch who thinks his shit doesn't stink and when you contradict an ealier post of yours you throw out some more incoherent trash about something else to try and deflect.

I remember someone hear saying your passionate about your beliefs. That is great and everyone should be, BUT you change tune at the slightest change in the weather, so to speak.

To top it off, you use comebacks such as "game set and match...motherfu#&er" and then can not understand why so many posters get annoyed with your shit.

Really, Partial? That type of comment is something you would expect a 16 year old to use.

Maybe, and I actually hope that most of this is a type of sarcastic, smart-ass humor that works amongst regular friends because if you actually, truly post this shit because you believe it ?! Well, then, sir, you are a grade A, prime cut, assclown!!

Helping or hurting. This is completely out of line in every way, shape and or form.

25.




well guys, which one is it?

does this thread suck, or blow?
Queef?



Inappropriate. Helping or hurting?

24.







Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

its not the size of your post count, its how you use it.

That's what people with small post counts say. That said, please grow up. Helping or hurting?

23.






*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, we know. We'll never be as smart or insightful as you. It breaks our stupid little hearts.

:lol:

There's someone like Partial on every forum. Lucky us.


Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

Ridiculous. Again, are you helping or hurting?

22.




*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, we know. We'll never be as smart or insightful as you. It breaks our stupid little hearts.

:lol:

There's someone like Partial on every forum. Lucky us.

You don't know anything about me. Awfully presumptuous, don't you say/

21.




well guys, which one is it?

does this thread suck, or blow?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h7qGmw8uoqs/SWA7r0Ipk4I/AAAAAAAAHQU/L_6JVTJkyTQ/s320/spaceballs_large_15.jpg

Unnecessary given the level of hate thrown around. Please try to help, don't hurt.

20.





*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, we know. We'll never be as smart or insightful as you. It breaks our stupid little hearts.


Did I say that? No. Did I imply that? No. Please stop spamming and contributing to a negative environment.

19.


You're way off man. Rodgers isn't average. He's "playing very poor." You just don't get it. He's killing our defense.

I agree, but based on your previous post this is just sarcasm. It's hurting, not helping. It's quite frankly being a negative influence.

18.




*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.
Right Parsh. Everyone is clueless and you are the sole source of supreme football analysis. Apparently, your venerable analyst McGinn doesn't get it either, and those defensive players playing against the Packers this week are clueless too damn it!



When have I ever said that? Why the personal assault? This is completely out of line and awfully presumptuous.

17.



Y'know, I felt kinda bad from time to time when it seemed like people were piling on to Partial or egging him on.

Not any more.

He likes it! Hey Mikey!

No, I don't. I think it speaks to the gang mentality of this forum.

It's a shame, really. Especially that instead of helping the problem you encouraged it.

16.






Guaranteed

:lol:

Why wouldn't they? They were last year. :lol:

This was really contributing a lot to the board. Please grow up. This is ridiculous spam.

15.






Dude, seriously stop with this fucking nonsense. How many different threads do you need to say the same shit? Day after day, give it up man. :roll:

agreed

it gets old

You're entitled to your opinion but I'm also entitled to mine and allowed to post well thought out, fair assessments such as this. Instead of debating the merit of the post you chose to engage in spam. Spam gets old faster than a quality first post like mine.

14.




Guaranteed

:lol:

Again, how is this helping? Are you helping or hurting?

13.



Dude, seriously stop with this fucking nonsense. How many different threads do you need to say the same shit? Day after day, give it up man. :roll:

Am I not entitled to post my opinion? This post was horrible. It has inappropriate curse words in it, and personally attacked me. Meanwhile, I took the time to write up a long post as to why I held my position and you ignored it to post this BS. Is that fair to me? No. It's not.

12.




well guys, which one is it?

does this thread suck, or blow?

How is the contributing to creating a positive environment? Are you setting an example or are you being a hate mongerer?

11.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h2Me8fvn0DQ/SMGyo2l0gwI/AAAAAAAAAsM/FsvTMxVwge8/S660/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

I like you as a poster because you're typically reasonably but what is the deal with the spam?

10.



This thread blows

yup

I've asked you repeatedly not to respond to my threads, yet you continue to come in here and spam. I do not appreciate it. What was the point of this?

9.


Nothing more to see in this thread. It's done as it's a silly premise.

I disagree. It's not a silly premise at all as we have had an inept offense in my opinion for 80% of the time thus far this season.

8.




Don't care about stats in this case.

By "in this case," he means when they contradict him.

Or at least until he finds some stats he thinks back him up. Then those will be unassailable.


Untrue, unnecessary, and inappropriate. Think of the forum and please be fair.

7.





Don't care about stats in this case.

By "in this case," he means when they contradict him.

Stop slandering my character with your lies. This is unnecessary and inappropriate. What good is this doing the forum?

6.



This thread blows

Unnecessary and inappropriate. Please address the topic at hand.

5.



And maybe we wouldn't have senseless fucking threads like this each week.

Unnecessary and inappropriate. Act like an adult please.

4.


Stop :beat: you :bs: I am sick of all the :bs2:

What does this have to do with the topic. Please address the post that I spent time thinking of and writing or do not post in the thread. This is called spam. It isn't contributing anything positive at all.

3.


Seriously, Partial and a couple other guys are not even Packer fans, and should either hit up a Favre forum or a Vikings forum.

This is defamation of character and a line of BS. Unnecessary and inappropriate.

2.


I guess Partial was goaded into this one too?

:roll:

Inappropriate and unnecessary. How is this productive?

1.

[PlantPage55]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h2Me8fvn0DQ/SMGyo2l0gwI/AAAAAAAAAsM/FsvTMxVwge8/S660/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

I like you as a poster because you're typically reasonably but what is the deal with the spam?


All right, I'll be the first to apologize for that.

At least I actually addressed why I disagree with the entire premise of the thread though. Still, the pic was unneeded (it always makes me laugh though).

[vince]

Partial, this is apparently an endless cycle.

If you can't see what you're implying when you accuse someone who disagrees with you that they don't "get it" and you expect that people won't take offense to that then there is no hope for civility when it comes to your comments on this forum. And that is just one example in a long-running littany of similar comments and attitude from you that you know all and everyone who disagrees is an idiot.

Don't play dumb and continue to insult the intelligence of the fine posters here, and you will likely be treated better, but it will take thicker skin and less retribution than you've exhibited. And please don't suggest taht you are innocent of unprovoked personal attack. You're not - not by a long shot.

Take Tarlam's advice. Really. Taking you at your word (although your insistence on inciting additional flames with your "See I told you Grant sucks, and so do you all" post demonstrates your not entirely sincere), that's the only approach that will get you where you say you want to go. Of course, you probably see nothing offensive about that post either. Hence the cycle continues to spiral.

[superfan]

This thread title - "Aaron Rodgers - Hurt or just playing very poorly thus far", indicates two negative absolutes: he is either hurt, or he is just playing very poorly.

Is he hurt? Probably, at least a little (who isn't nicked up in some fashion in the NFL) but I have seen nothing to indicate he is hurt seriously enough to affect his play. I believe Partial made some good points arguing against an injury - a QB who is at least moderately injured probably wouldn't be fighting for every yard on scrambles or winging long bombs down the field. One of the arguments was something like "maybe he is throwing the ball too hard for his receivers to catch, thus the drops" - that isn't an indicator of an injured QB.

Is he playing poorly? Not in my opinion. He is currently #7 in QB rating - yes, an overrated stat that isn't necessarily indicative of QB performance, yet it does indicate that he has performed better than "very poorly", compared to the rest of the league, up to this point. He has yet to throw an interception, despite taking aggressive shots down the field with suspect (at best) protection from his offensive line and backs. Whenever I watch the Pack play I feel he is, without a doubt, our best weapon and best chance to win. He makes plays with his arm, with his feet (currently second most rushing yards for QB behind David Garrard) and I think he does have that "it" factor that you need in a QB. He seems poised and doesn't appear to get rattled too easily, although there are some indications that the pressure this year is getting to him (i.e. sacks, knockdowns, etc. - not to be confused with media pressure). He seems to be handling that pressure about as well as I would expect any QB to handle it, including Brady, Manning, etc. All indications are that the players believe in him.

Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. His accuracy has been disappointing on some throws, and the overall play of the offense has been very disappointing. Especially when considering the standard of performance set this preseason. I also think the poor offensive line play and WR drops has contributed in a big way to his decision making - he does seem to be holding the ball too long in several instances and as such is his own worst enemy for some of the sacks he has taken. Have those been coverage/OL blocking sacks, or poor decisions on his part? Probably a little of both. I can't really say, all I've seen is the TV footage, which really doesn't show what is happening in the secondary on most plays.


Back to the thread title - if this were a poll, I would vote "none of the above". His play to this point has been bellow what I was expecting at this point of the season, but he doesn't appear to have an injury serious enough to greatly affect his performance. His timing is obviously off with his receivers and his decision making is debatable, I contribute both mostly to the blocking (or lack thereof) provided by the OL. But considering where he stands statistically right now among NFL QBs, in my opinion he is doing much better than "very poor".

[PackerTimer]

Ok Partial, speaking for myself it annoys the hell out of me that you post your opinion and then refuse to acknowledge contradictory evidence. I have no problem with opinions, but I can't stand it when somebody just keeps going on and ignores everything else.

Some examples.


1. His long ball has been really inaccurate lately. This pass has historically been the strongest part of his game. This season it has been a weakness for him.

His long ball has not been inaccurate. Obviously the deep ball to Jennings in the Bears game was a thing of beauty. In the Rams game he had four well thrown deep ball. Two to Jennings, one to Driver, and, I think, one to Nelson. Rodgers has also had some well thrown deep balls that haven't been drops but have also been very good throws.


3. Catchability of the ball. The receivers have never had a case of the dropsies prior to ARod taking over, yet all of a sudden are dropping boat loads of passes. Could it be the ball is wobbling too much, or maybe thrown too hard, or possibly too high/low, etc?

This is ridiculous. Almost every drop this year has been a ball that hit the receivers square in the hands. I can't remember more than one or two balls that have been dropped because it's been too high or behind a receiver. I just read an article recently where Driver admitted the drops have been on the receivers.

Some of this goes back to last year, where you kept saying Rodgers was no more than an average QB. I'm sorry but that's just plain false. Nobody in the right mind would say Rodgers is average. People are just a little tired of it.

[Partial]

Then people don't need to respond if they're tired of it. I'm entitled to my opinion and am allowed to express it. I disagree with your opinion. I'm not about to make personal attacks against you, though, or encourage others to gang up on you...

I certainly wouldn't justify my dispicable actions by saying "everyone else does it" or something to that effect.

That is the difference between me and most of the people here.

[vince]

Then people don't need to respond if they're tired of it. I'm entitled to my opinion and am allowed to express it. I disagree with your opinion. I'm not about to make personal attacks against you, though, or encourage others to gang up on you...

I certainly wouldn't justify my dispicable actions by saying "everyone else does it" or something to that effect.

That is the difference between me and most of the people here.
The cycle continues. Reread your first sentence and take your own advice Partial. Don't worry about what the rest of us do or don't do. You can't control that. Worry about what you can control - yourself. That is the only way to free yourself. Continuing to insisting that you're right and everyone else is wrong (or worse, everyone else is wrong and stupid - even in what you apparently think is an acceptable way, such as "I can't believe you homers." or "Sometimes I wonder how you guys make it through the day." or "It's hilarious how you can't admit when you're wrong." or "All the professionals agree with me" or "*sigh* You guys don't get it." or "See I told you so. Boom." should I continue?) will only perpetuate the cycle.

[pbmax]

I've got to step my game up. I didn't make the list and new lost post number guy did. Sheesh!

[Partial]

I've got to step my game up. I didn't make the list and new lost post number did. Sheesh!

You and I have good discussion. You're not disrespectful.

[Fritz]

This thread title - "Aaron Rodgers - Hurt or just playing very poorly thus far", indicates two negative absolutes: he is either hurt, or he is just playing very poorly.

Is he hurt? Probably, at least a little (who isn't nicked up in some fashion in the NFL) but I have seen nothing to indicate he is hurt seriously enough to affect his play. I believe Partial made some good points arguing against an injury - a QB who is at least moderately injured probably wouldn't be fighting for every yard on scrambles or winging long bombs down the field. One of the arguments was something like "maybe he is throwing the ball too hard for his receivers to catch, thus the drops" - that isn't an indicator of an injured QB.

Is he playing poorly? Not in my opinion. He is currently #7 in QB rating - yes, an overrated stat that isn't necessarily indicative of QB performance, yet it does indicate that he has performed better than "very poorly", compared to the rest of the league, up to this point. He has yet to throw an interception, despite taking aggressive shots down the field with suspect (at best) protection from his offensive line and backs. Whenever I watch the Pack play I feel he is, without a doubt, our best weapon and best chance to win. He makes plays with his arm, with his feet (currently second most rushing yards for QB behind David Garrard) and I think he does have that "it" factor that you need in a QB. He seems poised and doesn't appear to get rattled too easily, although there are some indications that the pressure this year is getting to him (i.e. sacks, knockdowns, etc. - not to be confused with media pressure). He seems to be handling that pressure about as well as I would expect any QB to handle it, including Brady, Manning, etc. All indications are that the players believe in him.

Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. His accuracy has been disappointing on some throws, and the overall play of the offense has been very disappointing. Especially when considering the standard of performance set this preseason. I also think the poor offensive line play and WR drops has contributed in a big way to his decision making - he does seem to be holding the ball too long in several instances and as such is his own worst enemy for some of the sacks he has taken. Have those been coverage/OL blocking sacks, or poor decisions on his part? Probably a little of both. I can't really say, all I've seen is the TV footage, which really doesn't show what is happening in the secondary on most plays.


Back to the thread title - if this were a poll, I would vote "none of the above". His play to this point has been bellow what I was expecting at this point of the season, but he doesn't appear to have an injury serious enough to greatly affect his performance. His timing is obviously off with his receivers and his decision making is debatable, I contribute both mostly to the blocking (or lack thereof) provided by the OL. But considering where he stands statistically right now among NFL QBs, in my opinion he is doing much better than "very poor".

I think this is a thoughtful post, and I agree with most of it. The only nitpicking I would do is to suggest that I'm not too disappointed, even slightly. I think Rodgers's accuracy might be better if he had better protection.

But on the whole, a fine post here.

[PackerTimer]

Then people don't need to respond if they're tired of it. I'm entitled to my opinion and am allowed to express it. I disagree with your opinion. I'm not about to make personal attacks against you, though, or encourage others to gang up on you...

I certainly wouldn't justify my dispicable actions by saying "everyone else does it" or something to that effect.

That is the difference between me and most of the people here.

I've never personally attacked you. I said that your unwillingness to admit the flaws in your argument annoys me. That's not exactly an attack. At least not any more than you saying that everybody but you just doesn't get it.

It's too bad I don't disagree with a lot of what you say on a lot of other topics, it's just that your opinion regarding Aaron Rodgers is misinformed.

[mraynrand]

This is what makes Packerrats so much fun: great football posts like this. I am fucking sick of shit like this on the Packer forum. From now on Partial is getting complete self-imposed 'ignore' from me.





Partial, since you are the main instigator, you'll need to demonstrate a lot of patience with the Rats that you've habitually been uncivilized with. Maybe an apology from you would be in order, even though some people owe you apologies, too.

Don't expect instant results from others, but demonstrate you mean what you say over an extended period. You know I have your back more than anyone here, so trust me when I say, you'll be held to your word and further ostracized if you fall into current habits.

I wish you the best of luck and I hope Rats will at least take a wait and see approach.





Tarlam, I completely disagree with you. I put together a nice post with points and counter points.

Here are some of the comments I received numbered for you. I'm so tired of this garbage gang-up hazing behavior being tolerated.

I will certainly agree that I have been uncivilized to a small degree, but to be fair I've been provoked by an angry mob of people who do not share my opinions.

Is this fair? No, it's not. Should it be allowed? No, it should not. All of a sudden one day I went from a good, respected poster to the guy that everyone decided it was okay to completely disrespect. If someone disagrees with my opinions, then fine, but disrespecting me as a person is completely uncalled for and out of line. I'm so tired of it and this place in general.

Half of the things said about me would never be said to my face because it's inappropriate and out of line. Falco, ThunderDan, and Skin know that half of the crap they say on here they would never get away with in real life because they get a beer to the face quickly followed by a clenched fist. I'm so tired of it being okay to keep poking the fucking bear. It's not okay.

I would like to think that peoples' parent's did a better job raising them than that. That's certainly not me, I've snapped on a few times here due to constantly being provoked and ripped on personally, but I'm not an outright asshole consistently over and over and over again.











QFT

http://i453.photobucket.com/albums/qq254/mraynrand/gamesetmatch-1.jpg



Helping or hurting?


26.




You are the most annoying asshat on this forum. You are an arrogant son of a bitch who thinks his shit doesn't stink and when you contradict an ealier post of yours you throw out some more incoherent trash about something else to try and deflect.

I remember someone hear saying your passionate about your beliefs. That is great and everyone should be, BUT you change tune at the slightest change in the weather, so to speak.

To top it off, you use comebacks such as "game set and match...motherfu#&er" and then can not understand why so many posters get annoyed with your shit.

Really, Partial? That type of comment is something you would expect a 16 year old to use.

Maybe, and I actually hope that most of this is a type of sarcastic, smart-ass humor that works amongst regular friends because if you actually, truly post this shit because you believe it ?! Well, then, sir, you are a grade A, prime cut, assclown!!

Helping or hurting. This is completely out of line in every way, shape and or form.

25.




well guys, which one is it?

does this thread suck, or blow?
Queef?



Inappropriate. Helping or hurting?

24.







Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

its not the size of your post count, its how you use it.

That's what people with small post counts say. That said, please grow up. Helping or hurting?

23.






*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, we know. We'll never be as smart or insightful as you. It breaks our stupid little hearts.

:lol:

There's someone like Partial on every forum. Lucky us.


Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

Ridiculous. Again, are you helping or hurting?

22.




*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, we know. We'll never be as smart or insightful as you. It breaks our stupid little hearts.

:lol:

There's someone like Partial on every forum. Lucky us.

You don't know anything about me. Awfully presumptuous, don't you say/

21.




well guys, which one is it?

does this thread suck, or blow?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h7qGmw8uoqs/SWA7r0Ipk4I/AAAAAAAAHQU/L_6JVTJkyTQ/s320/spaceballs_large_15.jpg

Unnecessary given the level of hate thrown around. Please try to help, don't hurt.

20.





*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, we know. We'll never be as smart or insightful as you. It breaks our stupid little hearts.


Did I say that? No. Did I imply that? No. Please stop spamming and contributing to a negative environment.

19.


You're way off man. Rodgers isn't average. He's "playing very poor." You just don't get it. He's killing our defense.

I agree, but based on your previous post this is just sarcasm. It's hurting, not helping. It's quite frankly being a negative influence.

18.




*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.
Right Parsh. Everyone is clueless and you are the sole source of supreme football analysis. Apparently, your venerable analyst McGinn doesn't get it either, and those defensive players playing against the Packers this week are clueless too damn it!



When have I ever said that? Why the personal assault? This is completely out of line and awfully presumptuous.

17.



Y'know, I felt kinda bad from time to time when it seemed like people were piling on to Partial or egging him on.

Not any more.

He likes it! Hey Mikey!

No, I don't. I think it speaks to the gang mentality of this forum.

It's a shame, really. Especially that instead of helping the problem you encouraged it.

16.






Guaranteed

:lol:

Why wouldn't they? They were last year. :lol:

This was really contributing a lot to the board. Please grow up. This is ridiculous spam.

15.






Dude, seriously stop with this fucking nonsense. How many different threads do you need to say the same shit? Day after day, give it up man. :roll:

agreed

it gets old

You're entitled to your opinion but I'm also entitled to mine and allowed to post well thought out, fair assessments such as this. Instead of debating the merit of the post you chose to engage in spam. Spam gets old faster than a quality first post like mine.

14.




Guaranteed

:lol:

Again, how is this helping? Are you helping or hurting?

13.



Dude, seriously stop with this fucking nonsense. How many different threads do you need to say the same shit? Day after day, give it up man. :roll:

Am I not entitled to post my opinion? This post was horrible. It has inappropriate curse words in it, and personally attacked me. Meanwhile, I took the time to write up a long post as to why I held my position and you ignored it to post this BS. Is that fair to me? No. It's not.

12.




well guys, which one is it?

does this thread suck, or blow?

How is the contributing to creating a positive environment? Are you setting an example or are you being a hate mongerer?

11.



http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_h2Me8fvn0DQ/SMGyo2l0gwI/AAAAAAAAAsM/FsvTMxVwge8/S660/ThisThreadSucks.jpg

I like you as a poster because you're typically reasonably but what is the deal with the spam?

10.



This thread blows

yup

I've asked you repeatedly not to respond to my threads, yet you continue to come in here and spam. I do not appreciate it. What was the point of this?

9.


Nothing more to see in this thread. It's done as it's a silly premise.

I disagree. It's not a silly premise at all as we have had an inept offense in my opinion for 80% of the time thus far this season.

8.




Don't care about stats in this case.

By "in this case," he means when they contradict him.

Or at least until he finds some stats he thinks back him up. Then those will be unassailable.


Untrue, unnecessary, and inappropriate. Think of the forum and please be fair.

7.





Don't care about stats in this case.

By "in this case," he means when they contradict him.

Stop slandering my character with your lies. This is unnecessary and inappropriate. What good is this doing the forum?

6.



This thread blows

Unnecessary and inappropriate. Please address the topic at hand.

5.



And maybe we wouldn't have senseless fucking threads like this each week.

Unnecessary and inappropriate. Act like an adult please.

4.


Stop :beat: you :bs: I am sick of all the :bs2:

What does this have to do with the topic. Please address the post that I spent time thinking of and writing or do not post in the thread. This is called spam. It isn't contributing anything positive at all.

3.


Seriously, Partial and a couple other guys are not even Packer fans, and should either hit up a Favre forum or a Vikings forum.

This is defamation of character and a line of BS. Unnecessary and inappropriate.

2.


I guess Partial was goaded into this one too?

:roll:

Inappropriate and unnecessary. How is this productive?

1.

[Cheesehead Craig]

So me calling your premise silly is a personal attack on you Partial?

I did not make one personal comment towards you. Now you are simply being hypersensitive.

[pbmax]

Its a good thing we didn't lose to the Rams.

Partial, if you are still available, please read superfan's and Fritz's posts. No one is trying to tell you how to think. But superfan has a point, tendentious posts just make the whole experience a shouting match.

Puts On Old Man Mask Like In Mr Ayn Rand's Favre Picture: Did you ever hear the store of Sandy Koufax when he was a young phenom? Had an arm that you see once a generation. Fastball that can't be seen and a hellacious curveball (pretty sure it was a curve, not many slider pitchers then).

But he had a control problem. Didn't know where the pitches were going. One coach or catcher told him "OK, you throw 100% all the time, no one can hit it, but you don't know where the pitch is headed. Try 95% effort, most still won't see it and it might go where you want it to." Boom. Hall of Fame.

If you were 95% certain in your posts, people might relate better.

Except on Darren Sharper. I am refusing to compromise on Sharper. :lol:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty is still trying to figure out how "this thread blows" is directed at Partial specifically.

And, why, even if it is...that it is a big deal. Fuck, i've seen "this thread blows" other times...and the thread creator wasn't crying about it.

[superfan]

The only nitpicking I would do is to suggest that I'm not too disappointed, even slightly. I think Rodgers's accuracy might be better if he had better protection.

I agree, Fritz. To clarify, my stance is that Rodgers has missed on a few individual throws, which has been a little disappointing that he failed to connect on those (whether the fault of Rodgers, blocking, receivers, whatever), and the offense as a whole has been disappointing based on preseason expectations (same reasons as above).

Thanks for the overall props. This board as a whole could use a few more :hug: and a few less :cat: .

[get louder at lambeau]

22.




*sigh*. You guys just don't get it.

Yes, we know. We'll never be as smart or insightful as you. It breaks our stupid little hearts.

:lol:

There's someone like Partial on every forum. Lucky us.

You don't know anything about me. Awfully presumptuous, don't you say/

Kinda presumptuous, sure. I'm going off how you have chosen to present yourself in this thread.

We have a guy who comes across very similarly at my forum, packersplanet.com. There's another guy who seems a lot like you at my other forum, packersnews.net. They could be your brothers, as far as how you guys interact on Packer forums. It seems to be some kind of natural niche that someone will invariably fill.

All three of you present your opinions and defend them viciously, to the point of obstinately ignoring contradictory evidence provided by other members. When other members perceive this as arrogance/ignorance, you respond by alternately demeaning them, as you did in the "*sigh*" post above, and acting like a victim, as you did by listing where everyone else is picking on you.

I've been lurking around this forum for a little while, and I've seen you post some very good stuff (another parallel with the guys at my forums). I have nothing against you. As you've stated, I don't know you at all. Just calling it how I see it. SkinBasket's response to your attitude was hilarious, in my opinion.

Your attempt at owning up is admirable. A lot of people have trouble walking the walk with that kind of stuff. If you want to really try to pull it off, I would suggest that you re-read Tarlam!'s advice with an ear perked towards the patience angle, as opposed to what you disagree with him about. It's way too easy to fall back into the same old rut. Good luck.

[superfan]

Puts On Old Man Mask Like In Mr Ayn Rand's Favre Picture: Did you ever hear the store of Sandy Koufax when he was a young phenom? Had an arm that you see once a generation. Fastball that can't be seen and a hellacious curveball (pretty sure it was a curve, not many slider pitchers then).

But he had a control problem. Didn't know where the pitches were going. One coach or catcher told him "OK, you throw 100% all the time, no one can hit it, but you don't know where the pitch is headed. Try 95% effort, most still won't see it and it might go where you want it to." Boom. Hall of Fame.

If you were 95% certain in your posts, people might relate better.

Except on Darren Sharper. I am refusing to compromise on Sharper. :lol:

Excellent analogy, PB. I'm a big fan of relevant analogies, and you hit the 2-2 pitch across the goalline, with the other team out of challenges and in a double bonus situation. :lol:

[pbmax]

Puts On Old Man Mask Like In Mr Ayn Rand's Favre Picture: Did you ever hear the store of Sandy Koufax when he was a young phenom? Had an arm that you see once a generation. Fastball that can't be seen and a hellacious curveball (pretty sure it was a curve, not many slider pitchers then).

But he had a control problem. Didn't know where the pitches were going. One coach or catcher told him "OK, you throw 100% all the time, no one can hit it, but you don't know where the pitch is headed. Try 95% effort, most still won't see it and it might go where you want it to." Boom. Hall of Fame.

If you were 95% certain in your posts, people might relate better.

Except on Darren Sharper. I am refusing to compromise on Sharper. :lol:

Excellent analogy, PB. I'm a big fan of relevant analogies, and you hit the 2-2 pitch across the goalline, with the other team out of challenges and in a double bonus situation. :lol:
What about penalty time?

[superfan]

What about penalty time?

Two minutes for delay of game. Unless it is a balk, balks are reviewable by the officials only inside of two minutes and are not challengeable.

Hope that clears things up.

[MJZiggy]

What about penalty time?

Two minutes for delay of game. Unless it is a balk, balks are reviewable by the officials only inside of two minutes and are not challengeable.

Hope that clears things up.

Good thing there's a 12-inch buffer after a series like this... :lol:

[superfan]

Good thing there's a 12-inch buffer after a series like this... :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[get louder at lambeau]

What about penalty time?

Two minutes for delay of game. Unless it is a balk, balks are reviewable by the officials only inside of two minutes and are not challengeable.

Hope that clears things up.

Balky is reviewable?
http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Perfect_Strangers_Dont_Be_Ridi-Cool_Us-T-link.jpg

[Scott Campbell]

Puts On Old Man Mask Like In Mr Ayn Rand's Favre Picture: Did you ever hear the store of Sandy Koufax when he was a young phenom? Had an arm that you see once a generation. Fastball that can't be seen and a hellacious curveball (pretty sure it was a curve, not many slider pitchers then).

But he had a control problem. Didn't know where the pitches were going. One coach or catcher told him "OK, you throw 100% all the time, no one can hit it, but you don't know where the pitch is headed. Try 95% effort, most still won't see it and it might go where you want it to." Boom. Hall of Fame.

If you were 95% certain in your posts, people might relate better.

Except on Darren Sharper. I am refusing to compromise on Sharper. :lol:

Excellent analogy, PB. I'm a big fan of relevant analogies, and you hit the 2-2 pitch across the goalline, with the other team out of challenges and in a double bonus situation. :lol:


I'm reminded of Billy Martin kicking dirt all over home plate for 20 minutes.

[Tarlam!]

Partial, since you are the main instigator, you'll need to demonstrate a lot of patience with the Rats that you've habitually been uncivilized with. Maybe an apology from you would be in order, even though some people owe you apologies, too.

Don't expect instant results from others, but demonstrate you mean what you say over an extended period. You know I have your back more than anyone here, so trust me when I say, you'll be held to your word and further ostracized if you fall into current habits.

I wish you the best of luck and I hope Rats will at least take a wait and see approach.





Tarlam, I completely disagree with you. I put together a nice post with points and counter points.

Here are some of the comments I received numbered for you. I'm so tired of this garbage gang-up hazing behavior being tolerated.


I don't know how you can disagree with me, especially as I was one of 3 posters to my knowledge that had your back. I gave you sincere advice, you deliberately ignored it. Instead of being the poster to be known as "new Partial", you chose to go on a witch hunt on three different threads using my post as an alibi to do so to prove what exactly? That you shouldn't have to apologize? That you had no part in your situation? That you are solely the victim?

That's abusing me and my good inentions and insults my intelligence. You might as well have taken a brick and thrown it through my window.

The kind of rampage you put on last night did zero to boost your credibility that you really want to turn over a new leaf. On the contrary, my ex-friend.

Partial, I'm done defending you and frankly, when people I know treat me like you did, I tend to throw them out of my social circle.

See to it that you keep Nutz and Snake on your friends lists. Without them, you'll have no one left by my count.

[MichiganPackerFan]

Ty is still trying to figure out how "this thread blows" is directed at Partial specifically.

And, why, even if it is...that it is a big deal. Fuck, i've seen "this thread blows" other times...and the thread creator wasn't crying about it.

I thought we agreed that the thread sucks?

[Bretsky]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYLsyNBnE5M

[Zool]

Balky is reviewable?
http://www.80stees.com/images/products/Perfect_Strangers_Dont_Be_Ridi-Cool_Us-T-link.jpg

Don' be ridicoolous

[get louder at lambeau]

Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

its not the size of your post count, its how you use it.

That's what I keep trying to tell myself. :cry:

Thanks for the welcome, Skin, and mmmdk.

You may be on to something with your username. Regardless, I'm sitting here silently judging you. :D

You might want to work on the "silently" part. :wink:

[MichiganPackerFan]

Look out, Partial's been known to compare his post count against others as a way of marking his territory. And a belated welcome to the forum to you.

its not the size of your post count, its how you use it.

That's what I keep trying to tell myself. :cry:

Thanks for the welcome, Skin, and mmmdk.

You may be on to something with your username. Regardless, I'm sitting here silently judging you. :D

You might want to work on the "silently" part. :wink:

Did you hear what I said or read what i wrote? :D

[mraynrand]

This board as a whole could use a few more :hug: and a few less :cat: .

:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :

Edit: that was too much with Gex piling on.

[gex]

This board as a whole could use a few more :hug: and a few less :cat: .

:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:


Thats right and I'll add: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave: :wave:

[superfan]

Trippy post from the Trippy Rat. :)

[Scott Campbell]

gex, edit your post.

[MJZiggy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYLsyNBnE5M

Rare that I call my kid into the room to look at something B posted!! :lol:

Nice find. :glug:

[SkinBasket]

gex, edit your post.

Where have you been homo?

[Badgerinmaine]

Gex's post looks like those massive weddings the Rev. Sun Myung Moon used to hold...
http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2007/07/14/amd_moon_weddings.jpg

[Sparkey]

For a few seconds I thought someone laced my smoke :shock:

[Scott Campbell]

gex, edit your post.

Where have you been homo?



:lol:

San Fransisco. I kid you not.

[3irty1]

Wow this thread turned into dialogue for a reality TV show.

[SkinBasket]

gex, edit your post.

Where have you been homo?



:lol:

San Fransisco. I kid you not.

I could smell the fragrant scent of the bath houses on you from here.

[ND72]

SO it's been a while for me....I moved, and didn't have internet until just recently.

I'm jumping in on this thread late, but I have to point this out, and no I didn't read all the threads, so I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but Rodgers is NOT comfortable in the pocket when passing. It's very obvious to me. I played offensive line so I know when a QB is not enjoying life back there, and right now Rodgers isn't. As soon as one lineman gets pushed back, he is already looking down at the blocker instead of up field. 2nd half of the Rams game was the first time I saw him look "ok". Twice in the first half he was looking at his blocking, which made him hold on to the ball longer, which causes bad things for us.

If Rodgers wasn't playing well, he would have some INT's to this point, and (knock on wood) he hasn't. I think Rodgers has played well, but is holding on to the ball way to long. Besides the offensive line reasoning, if you watch some replays, our WR's are NOT getting off the line very well right now. Lots of teams have been pressing our guys hard, and it has slowed things down for them. We really need to start to use our TE's more, as well as RB/FB for short gainers.

Is it me, or does it seem like our short passing game isn't being used at all? Very little slants or quick stops.

[Scott Campbell]

gex, edit your post.

Where have you been homo?



:lol:

San Fransisco. I kid you not.

I could smell the fragrant scent of the bath houses on you from here.


I actually had to pay $6 gay condom tax at dinner a couple of nights ago.

[retailguy]

SO it's been a while for me....I moved, and didn't have internet until just recently.

I'm jumping in on this thread late, but I have to point this out, and no I didn't read all the threads, so I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but Rodgers is NOT comfortable in the pocket when passing. It's very obvious to me. I played offensive line so I know when a QB is not enjoying life back there, and right now Rodgers isn't. As soon as one lineman gets pushed back, he is already looking down at the blocker instead of up field. 2nd half of the Rams game was the first time I saw him look "ok". Twice in the first half he was looking at his blocking, which made him hold on to the ball longer, which causes bad things for us.

If Rodgers wasn't playing well, he would have some INT's to this point, and (knock on wood) he hasn't. I think Rodgers has played well, but is holding on to the ball way to long. Besides the offensive line reasoning, if you watch some replays, our WR's are NOT getting off the line very well right now. Lots of teams have been pressing our guys hard, and it has slowed things down for them. We really need to start to use our TE's more, as well as RB/FB for short gainers.

Is it me, or does it seem like our short passing game isn't being used at all? Very little slants or quick stops.

Very well said ND. That's my take (short stuff, I'm not a former OL, and have no idea what Rodgers is thinking, other than "get the hell out of here") as well. Not much short stuff at all. Not much running at all. No holes when we do run.

It almost seems that McCarthy is refusing to adjust his game plan to what works (stubbornness? or...). I don't get it.

[retailguy]

gex, edit your post.

Where have you been homo?



:lol:

San Fransisco. I kid you not.

I could smell the fragrant scent of the bath houses on you from here.


I actually had to pay $6 gay condom tax at dinner a couple of nights ago.

What won't you do for love..... :roll: :P

[PackerTimer]

SO it's been a while for me....I moved, and didn't have internet until just recently.

I'm jumping in on this thread late, but I have to point this out, and no I didn't read all the threads, so I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but Rodgers is NOT comfortable in the pocket when passing. It's very obvious to me. I played offensive line so I know when a QB is not enjoying life back there, and right now Rodgers isn't. As soon as one lineman gets pushed back, he is already looking down at the blocker instead of up field. 2nd half of the Rams game was the first time I saw him look "ok". Twice in the first half he was looking at his blocking, which made him hold on to the ball longer, which causes bad things for us.

If Rodgers wasn't playing well, he would have some INT's to this point, and (knock on wood) he hasn't. I think Rodgers has played well, but is holding on to the ball way to long. Besides the offensive line reasoning, if you watch some replays, our WR's are NOT getting off the line very well right now. Lots of teams have been pressing our guys hard, and it has slowed things down for them. We really need to start to use our TE's more, as well as RB/FB for short gainers.

Is it me, or does it seem like our short passing game isn't being used at all? Very little slants or quick stops.

You are not the only one who's noticed that. I would love to see the TE's used more and more slants but I also think we are missing Brandon Jackson quite a bit. Wynn and Grant are not very good receiving RB's. Having Jackson would given Rodgers a nice little safety valve.

[ND72]

SO it's been a while for me....I moved, and didn't have internet until just recently.

I'm jumping in on this thread late, but I have to point this out, and no I didn't read all the threads, so I'm sure this has already been mentioned, but Rodgers is NOT comfortable in the pocket when passing. It's very obvious to me. I played offensive line so I know when a QB is not enjoying life back there, and right now Rodgers isn't. As soon as one lineman gets pushed back, he is already looking down at the blocker instead of up field. 2nd half of the Rams game was the first time I saw him look "ok". Twice in the first half he was looking at his blocking, which made him hold on to the ball longer, which causes bad things for us.

If Rodgers wasn't playing well, he would have some INT's to this point, and (knock on wood) he hasn't. I think Rodgers has played well, but is holding on to the ball way to long. Besides the offensive line reasoning, if you watch some replays, our WR's are NOT getting off the line very well right now. Lots of teams have been pressing our guys hard, and it has slowed things down for them. We really need to start to use our TE's more, as well as RB/FB for short gainers.

Is it me, or does it seem like our short passing game isn't being used at all? Very little slants or quick stops.

You are not the only one who's noticed that. I would love to see the TE's used more and more slants but I also think we are missing Brandon Jackson quite a bit. Wynn and Grant are not very good receiving RB's. Having Jackson would given Rodgers a nice little safety valve.

Good point. I think Jackson is a good change of pace back for us as well as Wynn & Grant seem to have the same running techniques. Our running game looks ugly as well right now, which hurts.

[get louder at lambeau]

gex, edit your post.

Where have you been homo?



:lol:

San Fransisco. I kid you not.

I could smell the fragrant scent of the bath houses on you from here.


I actually had to pay $6 gay condom tax at dinner a couple of nights ago.

Plus tip?

[Fritz]

Most people give the Packers almost no chance or running the ball much at all.

However, IF Clifton plays and can hold up, then you have an offensive line that is more physical and more experienced on the inside than last year's version.

This is the game these guys were drafted and groomed for. And the Williams guys are a little older, and I hope a little less effective.

The Pack can get some yards on the ground. Not a million, but maybe the kind of Edgar Bennett performance that used to work well enough: 22 carries, 84 yards.

[denverYooper]

gex, edit your post.

Where have you been homo?



:lol:

San Fransisco. I kid you not.

I could smell the fragrant scent of the bath houses on you from here.


I actually had to pay $6 gay condom tax at dinner a couple of nights ago.

Plus tip?

:rs:

[The Shadow]

Most people give the Packers almost no chance or running the ball much at all.

However, IF Clifton plays and can hold up, then you have an offensive line that is more physical and more experienced on the inside than last year's version.

This is the game these guys were drafted and groomed for. And the Williams guys are a little older, and I hope a little less effective.

The Pack can get some yards on the ground. Not a million, but maybe the kind of Edgar Bennett performance that used to work well enough: 22 carries, 84 yards.

Bang Williams Boys fat knees!
Bang! Bang! Bang!

[SkinBasket]

gex, edit your post.

Where have you been homo?



:lol:

San Fransisco. I kid you not.

I could smell the fragrant scent of the bath houses on you from here.


I actually had to pay $6 gay condom tax at dinner a couple of nights ago.

Plus tip?

:rs:

I didn't get that until the rimshot.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Detroit took the leads and Rodgers led the Packers on a drive to retake the lead. The defensive TDs were after Green Bay had taken the lead back on offense. The fourth quarter comeback stat is relatively meaningless in and of itself, but a lot of Brett's comebacks were of the same variety. Of Brett's 43 comebacks, how many were like the one he had this weekend? I'd guess under half of them.

Okay that is fair.

This article on ESPN explains what I'm talking about regarding game winning comebacks.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=fleming/090930&sportCat=nfl

It was the first time in his career that Brett threw a game winning TD pass in the final 10 seconds. It was the 10th time in his 273 games that Brett threw a game winning TD pass in the final 2 minutes of a game. He's done it once every 27.3 games (a little bit more than once every two seasons). That isn't in insult. Just pointing out how tough it is. Something to remember when you are watching ARod.

[Fritz]

Funny that if the Packers get to the end of the game and are up by three or seven or whatever with two minutes or less, and the Vikes have the ball deep in their own territory, it will be exactly what we all think is part of the game plan: make Favre beat you.

[packerbacker1234]

Funny that if the Packers get to the end of the game and are up by three or seven or whatever with two minutes or less, and the Vikes have the ball deep in their own territory, it will be exactly what we all think is part of the game plan: make Favre beat you.

Well, I want Favre throwing 40 plus times, but I don't want him with the ball down by 3 with just under two minutes to go... that is for sure. In that situation, at home, and now that his teammates completely trust him, I just don't want to see that happen. I still like favre but I if were going to lose either lose by double digits, or because we somehow fail on a drive at the end. I would hate to lose because #4 turned around and drove it with under 2 minutes for a game winner. That would be a sick, sick feeling.

[sharpe1027]

It is funny how one play is all people remember. Sure he threw an amazing strike some 30+ yards down the field right at the back of the end zone. Simply amazing. What about the rest of the game? Not so much. Just think, if that DB holds onto the ball that hit him square in the hands, pick six, and everyone is singing a completely different tune about Favre. Woodson almost always hangs on to his opportunities... :)