Two more, just two more.

[Patler]

Have been watching some replays.

Rodgers was 24/39 for 304 yards, 3 TDs. Rating of 111.48

Nelson's first drop, for which he stretched more than he had to, went between his elbows and hands. He could/should have caught it in stride for a 51 yard TD, or at worst a 35 yard gain, or so.

Jones' drop should have been a 75 yard TD.

Just those two plays, if completed would have given Rodgers:

26 of 39 for about 414, 4 TDs if Nelson went to the ground catching it. Rating of 136.06
26 of 39 for 429, 5 TDs if Nelson scored. Rating of 143.06.

Two drops on very catchable balls kept Rodgers from a truly monumental performance in his first Super Bowl. The accuracy with which he was throwing was really remarkable.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Rodgers is good.

And the Bert thread is on page 7. Love the new dawn!

[Lurker64]

Rodgers is good.

And the Bert thread is on page 7. Love the new dawn!

Not with a bang, but with a whimper...

[sharpe1027]

Haha, what a great stat line that would have been! Of course, if the Pack had scored sooner, then there's a good chance that they run a completely different set of plays. Maybe Rodgers has even better numbers than the prediction, but its also likely that they grind out some clock with runs and long drives.

[LEWCWA]

Haha, what a great stat line that would have been! Of course, if the Pack had scored sooner, then there's a good chance that they run a completely different set of plays. Maybe Rodgers has even better numbers than the prediction, but its also likely that they grind out some clock with runs and long drives.

Exactly right. He did what he did and it was enough. What ifs are for losers, Steelers have plenty of them! They left plenty of plays out on the field as well and only lost by 6.

[Patler]

Exactly right. He did what he did and it was enough. What ifs are for losers, Steelers have plenty of them! They left plenty of plays out on the field as well and only lost by 6.

Oh, I agree. I pointed this out only to show what a truly stunning performance Rodgers had in the Super Bowl. He had only a couple errant throws, but otherwise was so "on" that he easily could have had a record-worthy game with just standard catches from his receivers. I think it was one of Aikman's comments that Rodgers was a "little off today" compared to his earlier playoff games, which to me seemed an absurd comment based on what Rodgers was doing.

Even some on this board during the game seemed to question if Rodgers' game was MVP-worthy, as if he got it sort of by default. I have read suggestions Nelson or Collins should have gotten it. I didn't think it was close. Rodgers was superb, and played even much better than his stat line indicated, which was very good as it was.

[mmmdk]

How can this thread not be about TWO MORE SB RINGS in the next 4-5 seasons (as Rodgers pointed out)...is beyond me!? :lol: And fire McCarthy if he doesn't deliver...two more SB rings :oops: :smile:

[Patler]

How can this thread not be about TWO MORE SB RINGS in the next 4-5 seasons (as Rodgers pointed out)...is beyond me!? :lol: And fire McCarthy if he doesn't deliver...two more SB rings :oops: :smile:

If that was the intended subject, the title wouldn't be "Two more, just two more."
It would be "Two more, at least two more!" :)

[vince]

Two more iin a row would be the organizational three-peat of three-peats.

[Patler]

Two more iin a row would be the organizational three-peat of three-peats.

Hmmm....if a three-peat requires three things consecutively, wouldn't a three-peat of three-peats require three consecutive three-peats, or 9 in a row? Or does the lack of a three-peat by any other team between the Packer's three-peats mean they are consecutive three-peats, because the accomplishment was interrupted by no other three-peats? :cnf: :cnf:

I think my head hurts!

[Lurker64]

I'm willing to settle for nine in a row.

[Patler]

I'm willing to settle for nine in a row.

Aw come on, shoot a little higher! Don't "settle"! :)

[retailguy]

I'm willing to settle for nine in a row.

You're a real negative Nancy lately.

[HowardRoark]

http://cdn.okmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/drew11.jpg

[MJZiggy]

Have been watching some replays.

Rodgers was 24/39 for 304 yards, 3 TDs. Rating of 111.48

Nelson's first drop, for which he stretched more than he had to, went between his elbows and hands. He could/should have caught it in stride for a 51 yard TD, or at worst a 35 yard gain, or so.

Jones' drop should have been a 75 yard TD.

Just those two plays, if completed would have given Rodgers:

26 of 39 for about 414, 4 TDs if Nelson went to the ground catching it. Rating of 136.06
26 of 39 for 429, 5 TDs if Nelson scored. Rating of 143.06.

Two drops on very catchable balls kept Rodgers from a truly monumental performance in his first Super Bowl. The accuracy with which he was throwing was really remarkable.

Here you have the goal for next year...

Howard, you're just trying to torture Fritz with that, aren't you?

[MadtownPacker]

This is the worst thread you have ever made. Of Shamrock quality it is. He won the game when it counted. That's what I use to bitch about and that is what he did on Sunday when it counted more then ever. The guy has a lifetime Golden ticket with me from now on.

[Scott Campbell]

Rodgers is good.

And the Bert thread is on page 7. Love the new dawn!


Must.......not.......bump.........Bert............ .......................

[Joemailman]

Be strong Scott. Be strong. Think of the children.

[woodbuck27]

Hmmm....if a three-peat requires three things consecutively, wouldn't a three-peat of three-peats require three consecutive three-peats, or 9 in a row? Or does the lack of a three-peat by any other team between the Packer's three-peats mean they are consecutive three-peats, because the accomplishment was interrupted by no other three-peats? :cnf: :cnf:

I think my head hurts!


Hey! This is good. Even you Patler. Giddy or on the verge of that emotion. It's all good.

"Hmmm....if a three-peat requires three things consecutively, wouldn't a three-peat of three-peats require three consecutive three-peats, or 9 in a row?" Patler

Correct.

"Or does the lack of a three-peat by any other team between the Packer's three-peats mean they are consecutive three-peats, because the accomplishment was interrupted by no other three-peats?" Patler

That scenario would describe not consecutive three-peats, rather, one three-peat.

... but let's get a little foolish and enter the realm of lofty thinking.

Maybe we support our team to a two-peat and then swing for one and hit it out of the yard ... a three-peat looks a tad optimistic to me. Then I can always recall VegasPackFan's awesome post of a couple of days ago where he describes what it means to be a Pacxker fan here and overall what that experience entails, or should entail fron any Packer fan. So sure. Let's hope for, cheer for and meditate on the very real possibility that our team will 'in fact' repeat.

On the what if's, or subject matter of Aaron Rodgers and his QB Rating and drops by Nelson and Jones. It is what it is.

What I liked was the way Aaron Rodgers buckled in on himself and improved his individual performance. He did miss on some pass's before that and corrected and was our leader in getting us this huge accomplishment. Our team is the current Super Bowl Champion. I'm so proud of that. I thank Aaron Rodgers and all the Packer players. I thank Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy and his coaching staff.


An amazing effort for the Green Bay Packer Organization.

GO Pack GO in 2011.

[MJZiggy]

Now I have a headache.

[Bretsky]

Now I have a headache.

girl on girl sex will relieve any pain you have; take it to the bank

[MJZiggy]

At least you're consistent...

[pbmax]

Two more iin a row would be the organizational three-peat of three-peats.


Hmmm....if a three-peat requires three things consecutively, wouldn't a three-peat of three-peats require three consecutive three-peats, or 9 in a row? Or does the lack of a three-peat by any other team between the Packer's three-peats mean they are consecutive three-peats, because the accomplishment was interrupted by no other three-peats? :cnf: :cnf:

I think my head hurts!

Either way, we need to trademark it now before Pat Riley gets his hands on it.

[pbmax]

At least you're consistent...

He is the Cal Ripken of wishful thinking.