Where is bar set for Lions game?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Can't have too many polls.

[channtheman]

I voted get the W, but I would at least like to see the offense play like we know they can. They haven't put together a really good quarter of offense since the first half of the Atlanta game. Prove you can do anything against a decent D please.

[woodbuck27]

Let's simply win the game.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I voted get the W, but I would at least like to see the offense play like we know they can.

I think Dallas and Seattle have looked a lot better than Detroit lately. I would agree with you if Detroit was hot, but under circumstances I really think pack needs to pull their dicks out and swing them a bit. Maybe a Johnny Football money gesture or two. They need to show that they will run with the big dogs in two weeks.

[MadtownPacker]

I don't like how this poll shows what you picked. Harlan trying to shame you out of voting for what you want.

[Carolina_Packer]

http://www.customauthenticjerseys.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/sports-bar.jpg

Setting the bar or sitting at a bar...discuss.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I don't like how this poll shows what you picked. Harlan trying to shame you out of voting for what you want.

Timid souls voted for Packers to play not to lose.
Posters with the heart of a champion dared to expect the best.

I didn't have to look, I knew where to find you.

[Pugger]

I voted for just getting the W. You don't get extra credit for showing swagger.

[Zool]

I voted other because Harlan always spells pole wrong when he says "Can't have too many polls."

[mraynrand]

Let's simply win the game.

QFT

[KYPack]

I voted other because Harlan always spells pole wrong when he says "Can't have too many polls."

Post of the day, so far.

[woodbuck27]

Let's simply win the game.

In Pro Sports:

"Swagger puts a bulls eye on your back."

[Harlan Huckleby]

In Pro Sports:

"Swagger puts a bulls eye on your back."

Seattle have been bullies last 4 games or so. I don't think they are losing sleep over swagger bullseye.

Packers have looked like Kings of NFC North. "Good enough, smart enough, and dog-gone-it, people like them." Until they get plastered out west.

any of you losers who are satisfied with the Packers edging-out the sort-of-good Lions on their damn homefield Sunday can kiss my ass. Then my balls - a little lower, please. The Packers have not been playing well enough to just coast into the bye week.

We need to see Super Bowl caliber play!
When do we need it? Sunday!
When do we need it? Sunday!

Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! At Lambeau Field.

[Striker]

Seattle have been bullies last 4 games or so. I don't think they are losing sleep over swagger bullseye.

Packers have looked like Kings of NFC North. "Good enough, smart enough, and dog-gone-it, people like them." Until they get plastered out west.

any of you losers who are satisfied with the Packers edging-out the sort-of-good Lions on their damn homefield Sunday can kiss my ass. Then my balls - a little lower, please. The Packers have not been playing well enough to just coast into the bye week.

We need to see Super Bowl caliber play!
When do we need it? Sunday!
When do we need it? Sunday!

Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! At Lambeau Field.

2009 - Packers smoke the resting Cardinals. Lose in a shootout a week later.
2010 - Packers win a very ugly game against the Bears to claim a Wild Card spot and then roll to the Super Bowl.
2011 - Packers beat the Lions despite Flynn starting. Get blown up by the Giants a week later.
2012 - Packers lose to the Vikings, then beat the Vikings a week later. The 49ers then run all over them.
2013 - Packers win vs. the Bears in thrilling fashion, and then fall to the 49ers on a game winning FG.

Momentum/confidence is important, but that doesn't mean squat if it doesn't carry over. Just win, get the bye, and get everyone healthy and ready to go. 40-0, 40-35, 10-3, doesn't matter how.

You can look at the recent Super Bowl winners and see their uneven performances in December. The Seahawks last year went 2-2 in December and then turned it on for the playoffs. The Ravens went 1-4 in 2012 but still won the Super Bowl. The Giants did go 3-1 in 2009. The Packers were looking great offensively though they did drop the game vs. the Chiefs. The Saints went 2-3 in 2009 (including resting Brees in the final game).

Etc, so on, and so forth.

[pbmax]

Timid souls voted for Packers to play not to lose.
Posters with the heart of a champion dared to expect the best.

I didn't have to look, I knew where to find you.

So that explains your vote in the Pack v Patriots prediction thread?

[Harlan Huckleby]

So that explains your vote in the Pack v Patriots prediction thread?

What safe prediction did I make there? Or was I reckless? I think I said Packers had to score a zillion points to win.

[George Cumby]

2009 - Packers smoke the resting Cardinals. Lose in a shootout a week later.
2010 - Packers win a very ugly game against the Bears to claim a Wild Card spot and then roll to the Super Bowl.
2011 - Packers beat the Lions despite Flynn starting. Get blown up by the Giants a week later.
2012 - Packers lose to the Vikings, then beat the Vikings a week later. The 49ers then run all over them.
2013 - Packers win vs. the Bears in thrilling fashion, and then fall to the 49ers on a game winning FG.

Momentum/confidence is important, but that doesn't mean squat if it doesn't carry over. Just win, get the bye, and get everyone healthy and ready to go. 40-0, 40-35, 10-3, doesn't matter how.

You can look at the recent Super Bowl winners and see their uneven performances in December. The Seahawks last year went 2-2 in December and then turned it on for the playoffs. The Ravens went 1-4 in 2012 but still won the Super Bowl. The Giants did go 3-1 in 2009. The Packers were looking great offensively though they did drop the game vs. the Chiefs. The Saints went 2-3 in 2009 (including resting Brees in the final game).

Etc, so on, and so forth.

Striker, on the other hand, is bringing his "A-Game" this December.

Many question whether he can sustain this for the playoff run. Peter King says he's just a flash in the pan. Jaws has been critical of his mechanics. Michael Irvin snorted a line of blow from between a hookers boobs and then babbled incoherently. Howie Long scowled.

Wood Buck posted a non sequitur, Rand posted something insulting, Tank posted something slightly inflammatory but funny nonetheless.

Maybe Harlan can make a pole.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think this is an unusual year. I can't remember another year where Packers had a very good team, but another team in NFC looked about as unbeatable as a team can look. Packers have never demonstrated that they have the horses to go into Seattle and win. It would do wonders for their confidence, or at least mine, to see them look good against a strong defense Sunday. That task remains on their 2014 bucket list.

[hoosier]

I think this is an unusual year. I can't remember another year where Packers had a very good team, but another team in NFC looked about as unbeatable as a team can look. Packers have never demonstrated that they have the horses to go into Seattle and win. It would do wonders for their confidence, or at least mine, to see them look good against a strong defense Sunday. That task remains on their 2014 bucket list.

You only have to go back four years or so to find a close parallel.

[woodbuck27]

2009 - Packers smoke the resting Cardinals. Lose in a shootout a week later.
2010 - Packers win a very ugly game against the Bears to claim a Wild Card spot and then roll to the Super Bowl.
2011 - Packers beat the Lions despite Flynn starting. Get blown up by the Giants a week later.
2012 - Packers lose to the Vikings, then beat the Vikings a week later. The 49ers then run all over them.
2013 - Packers win vs. the Bears in thrilling fashion, and then fall to the 49ers on a game winning FG.

Momentum/confidence is important, but that doesn't mean squat if it doesn't carry over. Just win, get the bye, and get everyone healthy and ready to go. 40-0, 40-35, 10-3, doesn't matter how.

You can look at the recent Super Bowl winners and see their uneven performances in December. The Seahawks last year went 2-2 in December and then turned it on for the playoffs. The Ravens went 1-4 in 2012 but still won the Super Bowl. The Giants did go 3-1 in 2009. The Packers were looking great offensively though they did drop the game vs. the Chiefs. The Saints went 2-3 in 2009 (including resting Brees in the final game).

Etc, so on, and so forth.

Good research and yes.

The Packers aren't a swaggering style team anyway.

I've got zero problem if the Green Bay Packers stomp on the Detroit Lions. Simply be grateful for that and with humility prepare for the next BIG Game in two weeks.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You only have to go back four years or so to find a close parallel.

what was that?

Packers had no success against good defenses, and there was a defensive juggernaut in NFC?

I'm looking at the PAcker shortcomings throughout entire year.

[woodbuck27]

You only have to go back four years or so to find a close parallel.

The Packers did bounce back from a loss to Detroit late in the 2010 Season to win the Super Bowl.

[Harlan Huckleby]

In the last 4 games, Seattle has allowed 3, 14, 17 and 6 points.

The Packer offense has not solved physical defenses, especially on road.

From what we know, why should we think that the Packers are more than unlikely to win in Seattle?

I'm not saying a strong showing against Lions proves all. But it goes a way towards showing the Packers are up to bigger task.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The Packers did bounce back from a loss to Detroit late in the 2010 Season to win the Super Bowl.

And they may get creamed by Detroit this Sunday and go on to win Super Bowl. Anything is possible.
Given the way this season has gone, a solid victory this Sunday means a lot.

[vince]

In the last 4 games, Seattle has allowed 3, 14, 17 and 6 points.

The Packer offense has not solved physical defenses, especially on road.

From what we know, why should we think that the Packers are more than unlikely to win in Seattle?

I'm not saying a strong showing against Lions proves all. But it goes a way towards showing the Packers are up to bigger task.
That's fair I think. Shit the Packers have a bunch of hurdles to get over before they even get to Seattle. They'll have to get through Detroit and probably Dallas before they get to Seattle. They'll need to get hot and probably catch a couple breaks too against Seattle if they get there. The thing about Seattle is they don't usually give the other team many breaks.

Detroit, Dallas, Seattle - yeah baby

[mraynrand]

what was that?

Packers had no success against good defenses, and there was a defensive juggernaut in NFC?

I'm looking at the PAcker shortcomings throughout entire year.

Packers had a lot of shortcomings in 2010, and were playing with some total scrubs and rookie FAs. They had some rough showings against good defenses, especially after Finley was lost and of course when Rodgers was out. The comparison to Seattle would be the Steelers who were the #1 defense in points allowed and #2 in yards allowed - I think Seattle ranks exactly the same this year.

Of course, every year is different.

[George Cumby]

Packers had a lot of shortcomings in 2010, and were playing with some total scrubs and rookie FAs. They had some rough showings against good defenses, especially after Finley was lost and of course when Rodgers was out. The comparison to Seattle would be the Steelers who were the #1 defense in points allowed and #2 in yards allowed - I think Seattle ranks exactly the same this year.

Of course, every year is different.

You almost sound........ Optimistic?

[Striker]

In the last 4 games, Seattle has allowed 3, 14, 17 and 6 points.

The Packer offense has not solved physical defenses, especially on road.

From what we know, why should we think that the Packers are more than unlikely to win in Seattle?

I'm not saying a strong showing against Lions proves all. But it goes a way towards showing the Packers are up to bigger task.

In their last 5 games (adding another game where they allowed 3 points) they have also played Drew Stanton, Colin Kaepernick, Mark Sanchez, Colin Kaepernick, and Ryan Lindley.

I would hope they can keep their opponent locked down in those cases.

[Harlan Huckleby]

OK, Striker. Guess Seattle defense ain't much.

[Striker]

OK, Striker. Guess Seattle defense ain't much.

That's not what I'm saying. What I think is that they are being overestimated because of the last 5 games, and it's being hailed as a resurgence of their dominance, but look at the level of their competition. They're doing exactly what good/great defenses should do. A lot of Packer fans still remain unconvinced due to the level of who we've played. Yet they don't seem to care as much for Seattle.

Both teams will be tested in the playoffs. Dallas will be tough to slow down.

[Harlan Huckleby]

What I think is that they are being overestimated just a because of the last 5 games

Where do you rank Seattle's defense in the NFL, and I remind you that you are under oath.

I put them #1.

[Striker]

Where do you rank Seattle's defense in the NFL, and I remind you that you are under oath.

I put them #1.

It's a push between Detroit and Seattle. Both have been winning games for their offense. The big difference being Wilson rarely turns the ball over, while Stafford will go out swinging.

However, are we discussing how good they're looking relative to their competition? Or are we talking about where they're ranked? Because it seems like you're trying to create a completely different argument here compared to what I stated.

They look like they're back to last year's form. They've also played some pretty bad QBs, so you've got to factor that in as well.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's a push between Detroit and Seattle.

Then why did you challenge my posts about Packer prospects by saying Seattle D is overrated?
If Seattle is merely great rather than spectacular, that is still cryptonite to a team stymied by Buffalo & Miami Ds.

One of these days, Alice - to the moon!

[mraynrand]

You almost sound........ Optimistic?

I'm a realist. Packers can most certainly beat Seattle, but they'll need a whole team effort. They can score points, but they'll have to use a lot of different weapons and not get tunnel vision on Nelson and Cobb. Like the NE game. It's just a hard task, especially on the road.

[KYPack]

Harlan, you've lost the thread.

Change the title and the poll to "Who will sit at the bar for the Lions game"?

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, you've lost the thread.

What does that mean? I expected most people would vote the safe route, comforting themselves with any sort of win against Lions.

Genius is often a burden, think of Galileo in that lonely jail cell for insisting the earth revolves around the sun.

[mraynrand]

think of Galileo in that lonely jail cell for insisting the earth revolves around the sun.

It'd hard to think about that.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674057418

[George Cumby]

I'm a realist. Packers can most certainly beat Seattle, but they'll need a whole team effort. They can score points, but they'll have to use a lot of different weapons and not get tunnel vision on Nelson and Cobb. Like the NE game. It's just a hard task, especially on the road.

Copy that. Agreed they can win it but will require their best effort.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's not just that beating Seattle will be hard on road. It will be unlikely. Even if GB plays well, chances are good that Seattle will have it dialed up to 11 too.

[Guiness]

Then why did you challenge my posts about Packer prospects by saying Seattle D is overrated?
If Seattle is merely great rather than spectacular, that is still cryptonite to a team stymied by Buffalo & Miami Ds.

One of these days, Alice - to the moon!

I think the point is that the gap is not that big. Seattle's D is probably the best in the league right now, but not as good as the 'have not allowed more than 10 a game in 4 of the last 5' would make it seem.

Buffalo's D, especially their front 7, is quite underrated btw. They are very good. I'm not convinced about their secondary, however.

[Bretsky]

The Packers are a TERRIBLE road team; look at all the scores through the season. I get it....a win is a win is a win. But we rarely looked like an elite team on the road

We are an elite team at home. We beat Detroit and win the division again. Anything less would be a failed season if the division is our first goal.

We had out playoffs when we lost to Buffalo. It's going to be ugly when we go to Seattle if we get that far.

[Bretsky]

I'm a realist. Packers can most certainly beat Seattle, but they'll need a whole team effort. They can score points, but they'll have to use a lot of different weapons and not get tunnel vision on Nelson and Cobb. Like the NE game. It's just a hard task, especially on the road.


We played our asses off "at home" vs New England on got the win

We don't match up well against that defense at home. We're in trouble imo on the read.

We just have to hope Seattle loses before they play us.

[Bretsky]

I think the point is that the gap is not that big. Seattle's D is probably the best in the league right now, but not as good as the 'have not allowed more than 10 a game in 4 of the last 5' would make it seem.

Buffalo's D, especially their front 7, is quite underrated btw. They are very good. I'm not convinced about their secondary, however.


"probably" ? They are now pretty healthy.

Who could you even argue has a better D ?

Seattle's secondary is go good MM decided to basically shut down a portion of the field because he was not confident Jordy or anybody could get open vs. Sherman.

They are at another level than any D in the NFL on a neutral field. They are just that fast and the telent is just that good.

Remember Seattle still has the HUGE advantage of paying Russell Wilson about 400,000 per year. That is just sick....and they can rotate all that money towards the defesne.

When Seattle has to pay Russ that defense will lose some of its speed and talent.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I think the point is that the gap is not that big. Seattle's D is probably the best in the league right now, but not as good as the 'have not allowed more than 10 a game in 4 of the last 5' would make it seem.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/12/Kool_Aid_Man.jpeg

[Harlan Huckleby]

We had out playoffs when we lost to Buffalo. It's going to be ugly when we go to Seattle if we get that far.

Yes. Yet I always believe in redemption. It is never too late to turn things around - until it's too late. The Packers can get that offense clicking this Sunday. get hot, get that puncher's chance.

I think Seattle 2014 D is on par with Packers 1996, Bears 1985. Some say they are better this year than last.

[vince]

The Packers are a TERRIBLE road team; look at all the scores through the season.
That's just wistian. Average on the road. Great at home. That can change at any time for any one game. Seattle's really tough and a bad matchup for Green Bay IMO but if Clay and Peppers play like all-pros and hit Wilson's arm at just the right time or knock the ball out at an opportune time, that's the kind of thing that could be a game-changer. A lot like 2010 playoffs. Big plays by great players (even bad ones like Bush in the SB) can make a difference.

[George Cumby]

Three losses on the road to the SB Champs, Detroit who are solid and Buffalo who play the PKD very well. Dunno' if I'd say they are "terrible".

[Striker]

I think the point is that the gap is not that big. Seattle's D is probably the best in the league right now, but not as good as the 'have not allowed more than 10 a game in 4 of the last 5' would make it seem.

Buffalo's D, especially their front 7, is quite underrated btw. They are very good. I'm not convinced about their secondary, however.

^^^^

[Maxie the Taxi]

I'd like to see the Pack get home field and a first round bye. That said, the Detroit game doesn't prove anything about how good or bad the team is. Rand said it. Every game is different. On paper, the Packers can compete with anyone. They certainly can beat anyone in one game.

The key is which one of these groups of wealthy jocks wants a ring most. Which group of these high strung athletes can keep their head when taunted, when sucker punched or when victimized by a bad call.

And then there are the many, many variables...game plans, weather, momentum, coaching, injuries, OFFICIATING!!! These all vary from game to game, sometimes by huge margins.

If the officials are going to allow Seattle to play their brand of thug defense, well that's going to be hard to overcome.

[Striker]

Three losses on the road to the SB Champs, Detroit who are solid and Buffalo who play the PKD very well. Dunno' if I'd say they are "terrible".

That, and 3 of the 4 Seahawks losses are on the road. 3 of 4 for the Lions - on the road. All 3 Patriots losses - on the road. All 4 Broncos losses - on the road. I guess all of those teams are just terrible on the road.

It's just tough to win on the road. The Packers will need to buck that trend (assuming both teams make it to the point where they play each other) unless something weird happens this weekend.

[denverYooper]

That, and 3 of the 4 Seahawks losses are on the road. 3 of 4 for the Lions - on the road. All 3 Patriots losses - on the road. All 4 Broncos losses - on the road. I guess all of those teams are just terrible on the road.

It's just tough to win on the road. The Packers will need to buck that trend (assuming both teams make it to the point where they play each other) unless something weird happens this weekend.

+1.

HFA is back this year.

[Rutnstrut]

I voted for just getting the W. You don't get extra credit for showing swagger.

Maybe not, but it would be nice to see they have it. This team hasn't showed much fire the last few weeks.

[Maxie the Taxi]

Maybe not, but it would be nice to see they have it. This team hasn't showed much fire the last few weeks.

Packer players are like Packer fans...too polite. The most arrogant, smack-talking fans in the NFL are from Seattle and Dallas. They're due for a fall.

[Pugger]

You only have to go back four years or so to find a close parallel.

Of course what happened 4 years ago has no baring on this year's squad.

[ThunderDan]

That, and 3 of the 4 Seahawks losses are on the road. 3 of 4 for the Lions - on the road. All 3 Patriots losses - on the road. All 4 Broncos losses - on the road. I guess all of those teams are just terrible on the road.

It's just tough to win on the road. The Packers will need to buck that trend (assuming both teams make it to the point where they play each other) unless something weird happens this weekend.

NE must be horrible on the road. They lost by 13 to Mia on the road. Even the crappy away playing Packers were able to beat the Phins on the road.

[pbmax]

The health item is a hard one to pinpoint. But I haven't thought to myself he has looked limited for a few games at least.

[Pugger]

Three losses on the road to the SB Champs, Detroit who are solid and Buffalo who play the PKD very well. Dunno' if I'd say they are "terrible".

All of the playoff NFC teams are a game or 2 above .500 on the road save one - for some crazy reason Dallas is 7-0 on the road. It is damn difficult for teams to win away from home league wide.

[Patler]

During the playoffs, home field advantage seems to be growing less and less significant around the league, and for GB, it almost has a feeling of being a disadvantage in recent years.

[woodbuck27]

I'd like to see the Pack get home field and a first round bye. That said, the Detroit game doesn't prove anything about how good or bad the team is. Rand said it. Every game is different. On paper, the Packers can compete with anyone. They certainly can beat anyone in one game.

The key is which one of these groups of wealthy jocks wants a ring most. Which group of these high strung athletes can keep their head when taunted, when sucker punched or when victimized by a bad call.

And then there are the many, many variables...game plans, weather, momentum, coaching, injuries, OFFICIATING!!! These all vary from game to game, sometimes by huge margins.

If the officials are going to allow Seattle to play their brand of thug defense, well that's going to be hard to overcome.

" The key is which one of these groups of wealthy jocks wants a ring most." Maxie The Taxi

The Seattle Seahawks even practise like it's the Super Bowl. They actually congratulate one another or hate it when one side beats the other in practise.

The Seattle Seahawks = The Ultimate TEAM Attitude.



Now I'm thinking Julius Peppers and:

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRYlV-SWmEzob9E_MdF-MUmNkbCPGZvyD_bJl23_UkrkHX6yll4

can't hurt on game day.

Matthews and Peppers have to play lights out terrific starting Sunday. We need to see a secondary staying focused for an entire game rather than chest bumping one another after a good play. The game isn't over till it's over and that demands maximum focus and energy properly directed for both halves.

The Defense has to hurry to the ball and hit them hard. Resemble something that's feared.

GO PACK GO !

[Fritz]

During the playoffs, home field advantage seems to be growing less and less significant around the league, and for GB, it almost has a feeling of being a disadvantage in recent years.

I have felt this way the last few years or so. On the other hand, the team this year is good at home.

It's funny how we think whoever wins today will automatically do better in the playoffs, and that could be so. But it's not automatic. You never do know until the games are played. We could be moaning and gnashing our teeth tonight after Packer loss, only to have them win two or three or even four playoff games in a row. Or they could win today and we'll all be crowing and strutting, only to have them poop the bed in the first playoff game.

[woodbuck27]

"probably" ? They are now pretty healthy.

Who could you even argue has a better D ?

Seattle's secondary is go good MM decided to basically shut down a portion of the field because he was not confident Jordy or anybody could get open vs. Sherman.

They are at another level than any D in the NFL on a neutral field. They are just that fast and the telent is just that good.

Remember Seattle still has the HUGE advantage of paying Russell Wilson about 400,000 per year. That is just sick....and they can rotate all that money towards the defesne.

When Seattle has to pay Russ that defense will lose some of its speed and talent.

When you examine the Seattle 'D' position - position.... it looks like an ALL PRO Defense ... it's that good.

[pbmax]

I have felt this way the last few years or so. On the other hand, the team this year is good at home.

It's funny how we think whoever wins today will automatically do better in the playoffs, and that could be so. But it's not automatic. You never do know until the games are played. We could be moaning and gnashing our teeth tonight after Packer loss, only to have them win two or three or even four playoff games in a row. Or they could win today and we'll all be crowing and strutting, only to have them poop the bed in the first playoff game.

For this year, for this Packers team, its important. And its all about the O line and the snap count. Its pass protection is better at home. Its gotten better on the road, probably as Linsley has gained experienced. But it will need to take another step on the road in Seattle.

[Fritz]

How high is the bar set? At 7' 3", and the Packers will do the Fosbury Flop right over it.

[mraynrand]

How high is the bar set? At 7' 3", and the Packers will do the Fosbury Flop right over it.

Donald Driver could.