TWO QUESTIONS I HAVE AFTER A NEAR DEFEAT

[Bretsky]

1. Did the Giants Expose us as a very beatable team on Sunday

Remember a few years ago when Hoody Genius was running the show ? The Giants came in towards the end of the year, and exposed some of their weaknesses and then took them down in the Super Bowl ?

Anybody get a bit of that same feeling on Sunday ? Our secondary and lack of pass rush was abused. I'm more worried after the Giants game than I have been in a while.

Thoughts ?


2. What, if any teams would you be afraid of in terms of knocking the Pack out in the playoffs ?

Breaking things down right now, against a good team our offense in nearly unstoppable but I'm not sure our defense can stop a great offense. With that being said, right off the top of my head I see three teams I do not want to play.


NO Saints - Equal or better weapons than the Giants
Da Steelers- A maturing WR core that we'd have problems with along with the best D out of the three picks
Da Patriots- A team that might be able to take each jab we bring and throw one right back at us just as hard. If this game were next week in New England with good weather the over under might be 84 points.

Who, if anybody, do you fear and why ?

[Packers4Glory]

Saints in the NFC for sure. SF could cause issues and a healthy bears team is scary.

AFC balt, NE, PIT in that order.

[pbmax]

Don't fear the Saints wideouts or Sproles as much away from the Dome. Praying for snow/rain/ice so Brees tiny hands cannot grip football.

Patriots have no wideouts on the outside and Woodson can hold Welker in check. Question is who defends Gronkowski and Hernandez. Pass rush was very good versus Brady last year. Offense with Flynn scored 27 points after giving 7 away. Rodgers might score 60 versus a worse version of that D.

Steelers D not as good as last year but pass rush getting healthier might make up for the back end. Packers offense even better this year. Steeler's O better outside but O line even with Pouncey healthy is worse. Might help Packers pass rush going against two backup tackles.

I fear Steelers on neutral site first, then Saints on road. If Pack was on the road, then would be petrified of Saints O. Score would be 71-70.

[RashanGary]

They asked this at another forum a while back. I said NO if it's good weather and our pass defense doesn't get fixed. It's Chicago if it's a mudder. The other team I was afraid of was the Giants with their pass rush. If our pass defense gets stronger, the Giants are the team in the NFC most likely to be able to kill Rodgers.

[smuggler]

We'd probably beat the Pats on a neutral site, Saints too. SF, Balt, Pitt, it would come down to if they limited our O enough.

[gbgary]

If our pass defense gets stronger, the Giants are the team in the NFC most likely to be able to kill Rodgers.

huh?

as for the question...the saints are the only nfc team that has a chance against us...maybe the only team period. imo

i don't think the giants exposed anything that the rest of the league didn't already know.

[RashanGary]

huh?

as for the question...the saints are the only nfc team that has a chance against us...maybe the only team period. imo

i don't think the giants exposed anything that the rest of the league didn't already know.


If our pass defense stays the same - Saints
Mudder - Bears (before injuries)
If our pass defense gets better, I think the Giants are a tough matchup than NO

49ers are limited at QB. We beat them.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Personally, I thought the game plan for this game on defense was the worst of the year. How often do you have to play Eli Manning to know that he likes to wing it deep? Yet, I saw a lot of safeties cheating up. I saw a lot less 2 deep safety play than I would have liked. If Hawk, Bishop, Sitton, perhaps Clifton get back healthy and we have a better game plan, I think we take care of them easily in the playoffs at home.

[HarveyWallbangers]

The Saints are the only team I fear in the NFC. That would be a tossup. I'm hoping San Fran takes them out in the second round of the playoffs. I think Pittsburgh, New England, and Baltimore could all give us a battle in the Super Bowl. That's four teams I'm concerned about. I'd say our odds of repeating are around 25%.

[mission]

Exposed? No. Giants had their backs against the wall at home and played tough. Game actually made me feel better about the Packers.

Only team in the league I'm scared of is the Saints. Not worried about the 49ers.

[Joemailman]

The Saints are the only team I fear in the NFC. That would be a tossup. I'm hoping San Fran takes them out in the second round of the playoffs. I think Pittsburgh, New England, and Baltimore could all give us a battle in the Super Bowl. That's four teams I'm concerned about. I'd say our odds of repeating are around 25%.

Latest odds of Packers winning Super Bowl are 1.5:1. That's pretty incredible. Patriots are 3.75:1.

[mission]

Latest odds of Packers winning Super Bowl are 1.5:1. That's pretty incredible. Patriots are 3.75:1.

As much of a homer as I am, those numbers don't seem too EV+ to me. No play IMO

[MadtownPacker]

Exposed? No. Giants had their backs against the wall at home and played tough. Game actually made me feel better about the Packers.

Only team in the league I'm scared of is the Saints. Not worried about the 49ers.
Exactly. I was telling everyone this game was going to be close. Unless there is a rematch the Giants might have been the greatest challenge the Pack will face.

As mentioned the Saints and Brees in the cold dont invoke fear. Plus the 49ers will likely knock someone out. Maybe it will be the bears again? :lol:

[Joemailman]

Giants pretty much had the formula for beating the Packers:

Get pressure on Rodgers without a lot of blitzing.
Run the ball well enough to force Packers safeties closer to line of scrimmage.
Stop Packers running game.
Throw deep on Packers safeties.

Just one problem. Two turnovers, one returned for a touchdown. To beat the Packers, a team is going to need to score 28+ while playing turnover-free football. Saints and Patriots probably have the best chance of doing that.

[mission]

Exactly. I was telling everyone this game was going to be close. Unless there is a rematch the Giants might have been the greatest challenge the Pack will face.

As mentioned the Saints and Brees in the cold dont invoke fear. Plus the 49ers will likely knock someone out. Maybe it will be the bears again? :lol:

I was actually walking around the house all nervous Sunday morning, pulling a Whammy and explaining to my [semi-caring] wife that I'll be OK with 15-1 and how it might be good for the team and all that. She kept stressing out throughout the game and I just repeated "it was supposed to go like this, don't worry".

Anyway, "exposing" to me means the Giants did something against the Packers that other teams can now copy and exploit to win. What did they do? Throw a bunch of balls to a stud WR who made some big plays? Intercept Rodgers? Have more talent on their DL than just about anyone in the league? Run up the gut against two crappy linebackers? There's just not much there to emulate, no replicable blueprint unless a team has the raw talent to match up like the Giants did. Not a lot of teams do.

In the end, Rodgers was Rodgers and we won anyway. There are going to be close games in this league, they all get paid too.

[mission]

Giants pretty much had the formula for beating the Packers:

Get pressure on Rodgers without a lot of blitzing.
Run the ball well enough to force Packers safeties closer to line of scrimmage.
Stop Packers running game.
Throw deep on Packers safeties.

Just one problem. Two turnovers, one returned for a touchdown. To beat the Packers, a team is going to need to score 28+ while playing turnover-free football. Saints and Patriots probably have the best chance of doing that.

Saints and Patriots don't have the defense. We don't technically either but that's where the turnovers give us the edge in a close game.

[pbmax]

Personally, I thought the game plan for this game on defense was the worst of the year. How often do you have to play Eli Manning to know that he likes to wing it deep? Yet, I saw a lot of safeties cheating up. I saw a lot less 2 deep safety play than I would have liked. If Hawk, Bishop, Sitton, perhaps Clifton get back healthy and we have a better game plan, I think we take care of them easily in the playoffs at home.

DC was worried about the running game and Bradshaw gave them a pretty good lift. Even Jacobs ran well. I would bet he was playing tendencies down to down.

Even in 2 deep, Peprah was playing run first.

[George Cumby]

Anyway, "exposing" to me means the Giants did something against the Packers that other teams can now copy and exploit to win. What did they do? Throw a bunch of balls to a stud WR who made some big plays? Intercept Rodgers? Have more talent on their DL than just about anyone in the league? Run up the gut against two crappy linebackers? There's just not much there to emulate, no replicable blueprint unless a team has the raw talent to match up like the Giants did. Not a lot of teams do.



This. This is why I thought the Pack could lose this game. In addition to the desperation of the Giants; they seem to play best for Coughlin when their backs are to the wall.

NFC: Saints

AFC: Steelers, Patriots, in that order.

[Upnorth]

Our main weakness has long been talked about and expossed, hint hint its the pass D. However an additional weakness that shows up with Hawk and Bishop out is the run D. If you keep the ball away from our O you might, might, win (see 58 secs to go). When Hawk and Bishop get back it will be a bit harder to run on us.
I think we only need to worry about the Saints and Baltimore. Now that Harrison is back Pitt has a very improved pass D and I do worry about them (I previously was not but have changed the ruling upon further review) but not as much as baltimore. NE Pass D rating of 86.6 suprises me, but now that they have WR's playing corner I cant see them keeping up to our O.

On a tangent, D pass rating is much better in the AFC than the NFC. Does the AFC have that much better of a defence as a whole, or are the NFC qb's that much better?

[LEWCWA]

I don't know if they were exposed, but I sat through that whole game and never really felt like they were in jeapardy of losing. Even when they tied it up, I would have bet alot Rodgers would put them in position to win....MM was the only one that was going to lose that game for them, but the deep pass to Jordy took that chance away.

[LEWCWA]

Don't forget Nicks is pretty close to a Johnson clone. The guy is a beast...

[Pugger]

But was the Giant's scheme really any different that what other teams have said they wanted to do - get after Rodgers, score a lot of points, run the ball and keep Rodgers on the sideline? The difference Sunday was they were successful scoring a lot of points and they actually got after Rodgers. But ultimately we were our own worst enemy. Our defense had a worse game than normal :-( besides CM3, we couldn't run the ball and we had a bad case of the dropsies. But when the game was on the line Rodgers was magnificent yet again.

Only NO can play toe to toe with us because of Brees. The 49er D is very good and they could cause us problems. By the time Cutlet comes back the bares will be well out of the playoff picture. NY gave us their best shot AT HOME and lost. The girls beating us in GB? I don't think so.

Brady and company can score like NO so they could be handful. Baltimore's D is formidable but Flacco?:lol: I too do not think the Steelers D is as good as last year.

Truly, the only team that can really beat the Packers is the Packers.

[Upnorth]

I think this game showed that when Collins Woodson Hawk and Bishop are injured we are screwed on Defence. That is a huge part of why a better than what it looks like on the surface defence played their worst game of the season.

[pbmax]

McGinn on O Line:

He gives Newhouse credit/blame for 2 bad runs, 1.5 sacks, 3 knockdowns and 2 hurries with one sack nullified on penalty. EDS was worse in the run game with 3 bad runs and 2.5 pressures, though no sacks.

[LEWCWA]

Clifton can't get back soon enough, imo. If Sherrod isn't better than Newhouse at this point we may have a bust on our hands!

[pbmax]

But was the Giant's scheme really any different that what other teams have said they wanted to do - get after Rodgers, score a lot of points, run the ball and keep Rodgers on the sideline? The difference Sunday was they were successful scoring a lot of points and they actually got after Rodgers. But ultimately we were our own worst enemy. Our defense had a worse game than normal :-( besides CM3, we couldn't run the ball and we had a bad case of the dropsies. But when the game was on the line Rodgers was magnificent yet again.

Only NO can play toe to toe with us because of Brees. The 49er D is very good and they could cause us problems. By the time Cutlet comes back the bares will be well out of the playoff picture. NY gave us their best shot AT HOME and lost. The girls beating us in GB? I don't think so.

Brady and company can score like NO so they could be handful. Baltimore's D is formidable but Flacco?:lol: I too do not think the Steelers D is as good as last year.

Truly, the only team that can really beat the Packers is the Packers.

Giants can get to Rodgers with four, that is the difference.

[Packers4Glory]

A good defense and an offense that has a good TE.

SF is a real threat in my mind for that reason. Plus they have just enough at the WR position to make me nervous with our iffy pass defense. I do think we could force Smith to make some bad throws tho which is about the only way our defense seems stop anyone.

New Orleans I think can win one in the cold. I don't feel as if Brees is going to melt in the snow and they have a pretty good RB combo of Thomas and Ingram who could do some damage on the ground.


I seriously doubt Forte hurries back and plays this yr w/o a contract. Reality just hit him upside the knee. Barber tho isn't much fun to bring down and looks like a good back for bad weather. however I see them missing the playoffs unless Hanie figures it out.

[Upnorth]

So I just read that Manning threw 11 passes trageted at or behind the line of scrimmage. Between this and the running game I am not suprised the safties cheated up and then got burnt. Also Bush did play for a bit so that is part of it as well.

[mraynrand]

Personally, I thought the game plan for this game on defense was the worst of the year. How often do you have to play Eli Manning to know that he likes to wing it deep? Yet, I saw a lot of safeties cheating up. I saw a lot less 2 deep safety play than I would have liked. If Hawk, Bishop, Sitton, perhaps Clifton get back healthy and we have a better game plan, I think we take care of them easily in the playoffs at home.

good post. Also, Manning gets rattled and throws picks in bushels. He was rattled about a quarter into the game - after the pick six - and the Packers really didn't get after him. I've seen it where you can beat the Giants in a short stretch of plays if you go after Eli when he is in panic mode.

[mraynrand]

McGinn on O Line:

He gives Newhouse credit/blame for 2 bad runs, 1.5 sacks, 3 knockdowns and 2 hurries with one sack nullified on penalty. EDS was worse in the run game with 3 bad runs and 2.5 pressures, though no sacks.

Doesn't that add up to about 7-8 bad plays. The Giants had two total sacks. maybe it's just me, but this didn't seem like the disaster others have pictured it as.

[Smidgeon]

This. This is why I thought the Pack could lose this game. In addition to the desperation of the Giants; they seem to play best for Coughlin when their backs are to the wall.

NFC: Saints

AFC: Steelers, Patriots, in that order.

I said it another thread, but I "fear" the teams with elite QBs that can put on a Kurt Warner game. And the three teams you mentioned are the three that have that QB.

[pbmax]

Doesn't that add up to about 7-8 bad plays. The Giants had two total sacks. maybe it's just me, but this didn't seem like the disaster others have pictured it as.

It was not a disaster or free for all, but Rodgers was on the move (and I don't count his runs when the Giants had everyone underneath in coverage) more than normal. Several times he simply bailed right of JPP or whoever was on RDE/Newhouse flashed getting around the corner.

That plus Tuck and other guy pressure up the middle made the pocket uncomfortable.

[denverYooper]

good post. Also, Manning gets rattled and throws picks in bushels. He was rattled about a quarter into the game - after the pick six - and the Packers really didn't get after him. I've seen it where you can beat the Giants in a short stretch of plays if you go after Eli when he is in panic mode.

Here's where being Bishop-less might have hurt GB some. He's been a decent blitzer and usually lays a pretty good lick. One good pop from him at that point might have made Eli a lot less comfortable for a bit.

[pbmax]

good post. Also, Manning gets rattled and throws picks in bushels. He was rattled about a quarter into the game - after the pick six - and the Packers really didn't get after him. I've seen it where you can beat the Giants in a short stretch of plays if you go after Eli when he is in panic mode.

But wouldn't you say the Pack had more pressure on Manning than almost any other QB this year? Not sure they could have gotten more without selling out coverage.

[mraynrand]

But wouldn't you say the Pack had more pressure on Manning than almost any other QB this year? Not sure they could have gotten more without selling out coverage.

You're probably right that they would have put themselves at risk for a big play with extreme blitzing, especially since, as Yoop points out, their second best pass rusher (Bishop) was out.

[Deputy Nutz]

I don't care where the Packers play the Saints, and what kind of weather they play them in, the Saints are a threat. They can actually run the ball and Brees has a new weapon in a sure handed tight end in Graham that could do some damage on short throws and running after the catch.

In the AFC there are three teams that could expose the Packers, The Ravens have a defense to go head to head with the Packers offense, and their offense is just good enough to put enough points on the board to make the game interesting. The Packers will have no answer for the Patriots' offense. The two biggest weapons the Pats have are their tight ends and news flash: The Packers have trouble covering tight ends. Not to mention Wes Welker. The Steelers are still stingy on defense but I don't think they have the secondary to match the Packers wide receivers. Sure they will get pressure but I think the Packers have enough big plays in them to beat the Steelers. Nothing the Steelers do on offense scares me, but they are a well run franchise that traditionally causes problems for the Packers and any team in the NFL, they don't usually get blown out and keep the game close.

49ers don't have a chance against the Packers, neither do the Bears, or the Falcons.

[ThunderDan]

On a tangent, D pass rating is much better in the AFC than the NFC. Does the AFC have that much better of a defence as a whole, or are the NFC qb's that much better?

Yes to both.

Who are the elite QBs this year? Rodgers, Brees, Brady

Looking at rating you have, in order with 90+ rating: Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Romo, Shaub(IR), E Manning, A Smith, Roethlisberger, and Stafford.

6 Active NFC QBs and 2 Active AFC QBs.

[Fritz]

Somewhere along the way - probably in the playoffs, I'm afraid - a defense will rise up and slow down the Packer offense. And the defense of the Pack willnot be able to get the job done.

[pbmax]

Somewhere along the way - probably in the playoffs, I'm afraid - a defense will rise up and slow down the Packer offense. And the defense of the Pack willnot be able to get the job done.

We have already kind of seen that with Detroit, Tampa and the Giants. The Packers still score. The determining factor is the number of possessions. The Giants ran well enough to limit possession but coughed up a pick 6 and faded in the middle of the game. Detroit no longer had the weapons to keep possession. Tampa had Blount but not enough of anything else.

[pbmax]

I don't care where the Packers play the Saints, and what kind of weather they play them in, the Saints are a threat. They can actually run the ball and Brees has a new weapon in a sure handed tight end in Graham that could do some damage on short throws and running after the catch.

In the AFC there are three teams that could expose the Packers, The Ravens have a defense to go head to head with the Packers offense, and their offense is just good enough to put enough points on the board to make the game interesting. The Packers will have no answer for the Patriots' offense. The two biggest weapons the Pats have are their tight ends and news flash: The Packers have trouble covering tight ends. Not to mention Wes Welker. The Steelers are still stingy on defense but I don't think they have the secondary to match the Packers wide receivers. Sure they will get pressure but I think the Packers have enough big plays in them to beat the Steelers. Nothing the Steelers do on offense scares me, but they are a well run franchise that traditionally causes problems for the Packers and any team in the NFL, they don't usually get blown out and keep the game close.

49ers don't have a chance against the Packers, neither do the Bears, or the Falcons.

Not as concerned as Nutz about the Patriots. Packers versus Patriots on a neutral field would be an O/U of 85.

Ravens do have the defense. But that offense is not frightening and their o line doesn't run block as well as you would expect. They can protect Flacco so even more than Manning, pressure would be paramount since he will fold.

Houston is a puzzle. They might be world beaters or they might be the 49ers.

[mraynrand]

We have already kind of seen that with Detroit, Tampa and the Giants. The Packers still score. The determining factor is the number of possessions. The Giants ran well enough to limit possession but coughed up a pick 6 and faded in the middle of the game. Detroit no longer had the weapons to keep possession. Tampa had Blount but not enough of anything else.

That's why the Saints present a real problem. They can run the ball, but have a lights out passing game that prevents any thoughts of 8 in the box. Ravens and 49ers depend on play action. So the Saints can possess the ball against the Packers and limit the Packers' possessions. But they don't have to sacrifice scoring to do it.

The Saint's worst enemy actually may be the fact that they really love their passing game. They can be balanced, but sometimes they forget to do it.

[Pugger]

Are the Saints as formidable on the road and on grass?

[Bossman641]

I don't think any team can stop the Packer offense. The opposing team has to have a dynamite QB and be able to put up points on their own, and then hope for just enough stops and or fumbles/interceptions. Only teams that really fit the bill for me are New England and the Saints. Baltimore could be a possibility but I don't see Flacco being able to do it for a full game. Pittsburgh doesn't have enough offense IMO.

[Zool]

I don't think any team can stop the Packer offense. The opposing team has to have a dynamite QB and be able to put up points on their own, and then hope for just enough stops and or fumbles/interceptions. Only teams that really fit the bill for me are New England and the Saints. Baltimore could be a possibility but I don't see Flacco being able to do it for a full game. Pittsburgh doesn't have enough offense IMO.

I actually think Pitt has the perfect O to do it. 2 fast WR's and a good enough running game. Peprah is not playing sound at all this year.

[Deputy Nutz]

New England has the only offense in the AFC to match the Packers point for point. Both defenses are very similar. The Saints and the Packers also meet up very evenly, and yes they don't need turf to beat the Packers they were a two point conversion away from tying the Packers at home on opening night. Cold and shitty weather doesn't play into the Packers hands, and it benefits the Saints running game. Wind will be the main deterrent to the passing game for both teams, no wind, no problems regardless of field conditions or the cold.

[retailguy]

I fail to understand why a last second 3 point victory where the alternative was overtime is a "near defeat". I must be missing something, other than the fact we didn't win by 15 which has been the typical pattern this season.

I'm worried about all the games. I'm more worried about a mulligan at this point than a specfic team, but doesn't the team deserve a little more confidence than this out of us? ;)

[mraynrand]

I fail to understand why a last second 3 point victory where the alternative was overtime is a "near defeat". I must be missing something, other than the fact we didn't win by 15 which has been the typical pattern this season.

I'm worried about all the games. I'm more worried about a mulligan at this point than a specfic team, but doesn't the team deserve a little more confidence than this out of us? ;)

yes. good post. Absence makes the heart grow fonder. I miss Desmond Bishop.

[mission]

I fail to understand why a last second 3 point victory where the alternative was overtime is a "near defeat". I must be missing something, other than the fact we didn't win by 15 which has been the typical pattern this season.

I'm worried about all the games. I'm more worried about a mulligan at this point than a specfic team, but doesn't the team deserve a little more confidence than this out of us? ;)

I think we're guarding our hearts so to speak. Such high expectations, such a letdown possible.... preparing for heartache, ready to celebrate if necessary.

[MJZiggy]

1. Did the Giants Expose us as a very beatable team on Sunday

Remember a few years ago when Hoody Genius was running the show ? The Giants came in towards the end of the year, and exposed some of their weaknesses and then took them down in the Super Bowl ?

Anybody get a bit of that same feeling on Sunday ? Our secondary and lack of pass rush was abused. I'm more worried after the Giants game than I have been in a while.

Thoughts ?


2. What, if any teams would you be afraid of in terms of knocking the Pack out in the playoffs ?

Breaking things down right now, against a good team our offense in nearly unstoppable but I'm not sure our defense can stop a great offense. With that being said, right off the top of my head I see three teams I do not want to play.


NO Saints - Equal or better weapons than the Giants
Da Steelers- A maturing WR core that we'd have problems with along with the best D out of the three picks
Da Patriots- A team that might be able to take each jab we bring and throw one right back at us just as hard. If this game were next week in New England with good weather the over under might be 84 points.

Who, if anybody, do you fear and why ?

I just wanted to say for the record that this is more than two questions :mrgreen: I think I've learned to take each game as it comes. Sure I get nervous and worried beforehand, but I don't think there's anyone who can beat us unless we let them. And that is usually my fear.

[Pugger]

I fail to understand why a last second 3 point victory where the alternative was overtime is a "near defeat". I must be missing something, other than the fact we didn't win by 15 which has been the typical pattern this season.

I'm worried about all the games. I'm more worried about a mulligan at this point than a specfic team, but doesn't the team deserve a little more confidence than this out of us? ;)

I don't understand why that was a near defeat either. If we were BEHIND with one minute to go, then maybe...

[Pugger]

I just wanted to say for the record that this is more than two questions :mrgreen: I think I've learned to take each game as it comes. Sure I get nervous and worried beforehand, but I don't think there's anyone who can beat us unless we let them. And that is usually my fear.

I hear ya. If we don't beat ourselves with penalties and turnovers we're damn hard to beat. But that's the thing, we can't mess up because our defense isn't all that stellar especially if we don't get turnovers.

[Packers4Glory]

this defense lives and dies off the turnover. RIght now they aren't capable of stopping a team like the Saints. So any rematch w/ them is going to go down to the wire..again...and a battle to see who can turn it over the least.

[Smeefers]

1. Did the Giants Expose us as a very beatable team on Sunday

Remember a few years ago when Hoody Genius was running the show ? The Giants came in towards the end of the year, and exposed some of their weaknesses and then took them down in the Super Bowl ?

Anybody get a bit of that same feeling on Sunday ? Our secondary and lack of pass rush was abused. I'm more worried after the Giants game than I have been in a while.

Thoughts ?


2. What, if any teams would you be afraid of in terms of knocking the Pack out in the playoffs ?

Breaking things down right now, against a good team our offense in nearly unstoppable but I'm not sure our defense can stop a great offense. With that being said, right off the top of my head I see three teams I do not want to play.


NO Saints - Equal or better weapons than the Giants
Da Steelers- A maturing WR core that we'd have problems with along with the best D out of the three picks
Da Patriots- A team that might be able to take each jab we bring and throw one right back at us just as hard. If this game were next week in New England with good weather the over under might be 84 points.

Who, if anybody, do you fear and why ?

I know I'm late to the game when it's three tabs late, but I'll answer none-the-less.

1. The Giants did expose how to beat us. You have to get serious pressure with 4 linemen and drop 7 back into coverage. Oh, and they have to be great at coverage or they have to hope that all the recievers drop a ton of balls. Oh, and they have to score 40 points. Yeah. That's the tried and true way to beat the pack. It's also a sure fire way to beat every other team in the NFL. We got the Giants playing at their absolute best and we still won.

2. Any team can beat us. Anything can happen. The #6 seed went and won it all yesteryear. Aaron Rodgers can throw 3 interceptions to 1 touchdown with a 45% completion rate. It's not likely, but if it does, we're done. Out. Once the playoffs hit, you can't overlook any team, because any team can knock you out. Just ask the Saints when they went up against the only team to get into the playoffs with a loosing record and lost. The Saints. Think about that.

[King Friday]

49ers should scare you. With their run game, they could eat up a lot of clock against us and keep our offense off the field...especially in January in Lambeau. I'd rather play the 49ers in SF.

The only teams that scare me are the ones capable of keeping our offense off the field and wearing down our defense's ability to make plays. Baltimore and 49ers are most likely to topple the Packers.

[denverYooper]

49ers should scare you. With their run game, they could eat up a lot of clock against us and keep our offense off the field...especially in January in Lambeau. I'd rather play the 49ers in SF.

The only teams that scare me are the ones capable of keeping our offense off the field and wearing down our defense's ability to make plays. Baltimore and 49ers are most likely to topple the Packers.

I'm still not convinced that th Niners aren't this year's Falcons.

[mission]

I'm still not convinced that th Niners aren't this year's Falcons.

Easy schedule. Run-first offense. Built to consistently beat up lesser teams, but just not explosive enough to hang with the most explosive teams in the league.

Now maybe Alex Smith ends up being a lot more of a QB than I'm giving him credit for and then I end up wrong. Forcing multiple TOs is the only way to beat the Packers IMO... could they do it? Mmmm... maybe one.

[Bretsky]

McGinn on O Line:

He gives Newhouse credit/blame for 2 bad runs, 1.5 sacks, 3 knockdowns and 2 hurries with one sack nullified on penalty. EDS was worse in the run game with 3 bad runs and 2.5 pressures, though no sacks.

Marshmellow Newhouse is a nice utility guy but not a starter at this point.

[mission]

Is it too late in the year, with too much at stake, to ask how Sherrod looks?

[pbmax]

Is it too late in the year, with too much at stake, to ask how Sherrod looks?

Went digging earlier this week for info. Not much beside his stint when Cliffy and Bulaga were down. He did make the active roster after Bulaga got hurt, but that was a numbers thing. I have to say, that he looked good in pass pro after a shaky start, but it was a very limited stint. Otherwise, very little info.

[Bretsky]

Is it too late in the year, with too much at stake, to ask how Sherrod looks?


Yes

I think he's a nice prospect but weak. I think GB was licking their chops when it appeared either Ingram or Carimi might fall to them. Then they both got snapped up and GB got a guy who might be a good year of getting stronger and more polished before he's serviceable....which is why he fell to where he did. He was too good of prospect to pass up but needs to develop or the pick might look like John Michels. Hopefully I'm putting a whammy on the dude and he'll turn into a star

[pbmax]

Yes

I think he's a nice prospect but weak. I think GB was licking their chops when it appeared either Ingram or Carimi might fall to them. Then they both got snapped up and GB got a guy who might be a good year of getting stronger and more polished before he's serviceable....which is why he fell to where he did. He was too good of prospect to pass up but needs to develop or the pick might look like John Michels. Hopefully I'm putting a whammy on the dude and he'll turn into a star

You are whammy-ing him because the scuttlebutt after the draft was that he was the last lineman with a first round grade on the board for them and he was higher than one other previous pick (don't remember which).

[mission]

Went digging earlier this week for info. Not much beside his stint when Cliffy and Bulaga were down. He did make the active roster after Bulaga got hurt, but that was a numbers thing. I have to say, that he looked good in pass pro after a shaky start, but it was a very limited stint. Otherwise, very little info.

Yeah, I forgot which game he played but I remember not thinking he was total jerkoff, so that's pretty good. I know Newhouse has had to go against some top rushers, but this is the NFL and that's all he's going to see at LT.

[mission]

Yes

I think he's a nice prospect but weak. I think GB was licking their chops when it appeared either Ingram or Carimi might fall to them. Then they both got snapped up and GB got a guy who might be a good year of getting stronger and more polished before he's serviceable....which is why he fell to where he did. He was too good of prospect to pass up but needs to develop or the pick might look like John Michels. Hopefully I'm putting a whammy on the dude and he'll turn into a star

I'm sure that's true. First round talent who's got to hang around all season... what did that do for him? I'd like to get a big win the next two weeks so he can get some snaps (if the roster #s allow) and find out.

[Bretsky]

You are whammy-ing him because the scuttlebutt after the draft was that he was the last lineman with a first round grade on the board for them and he was higher than one other previous pick (don't remember which).

He was like the last OT worth a crap, or so the homers argued :)
I was mad the Bears picked Carimi
The only OT who Sherrod was rated higher than was James Carpenter.....JH's guy

[HarveyWallbangers]

LOL at Bretsky writing off Sherrod during his rookie year. Green Bay drafts and develops. Let the coaches develop the young man before writing him off.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Bretsky seems ready to rip in our team riding an 18 game winning steak. When we lose again, in a couple of years, I'm going to hate reading his posts. :)

[Bretsky]

LOL at Bretsky writing off Sherrod during his rookie year. Green Bay drafts and develops. Let the coaches develop the young man before writing him off.

Who is writing off Sherrod ? I think you should reread my info
I said he's not ready "now"
That's hardly writing anybody off

[HarveyWallbangers]

This is what I was referring to. Not writing him off, but already get your ducks in a row. :)


He was like the last OT worth a crap, or so the homers argued

[Bretsky]

This is what I was referring to. Not writing him off, but already get your ducks in a row. :)


I thnk it was pretty well speculated everywhere....even by those on NFLN and ESPN, that Sherrod was the last OT in tier one of that group. Some were surprised Carpenter was picked before him (as JH predicted). So I'm just spitting out what everybody was saying around the draft.