How is Arizona feeling?

[Joemailman]

I agree with the poster who said that this game was good for the Pack but really means nothing to the Cards. It doesn't mean anybody is in anybody'd head or anything. It means little, and what little it does is that a young Packer team gained a bit of confidence.

I did not care for some of G. Bedard's comments in his live game blog - and one from M. Hunt, too - which suggested that somehow the Packers were pissing off the Cards by playing their starters and putting a sting on the Cards. What? From all I've read, the Packers didn't do much that was exotic - basic defense and offense - and there seemed to be no attempt to show anyone up. It's just that MM decided to play his starters longer. So Bedard's comments about riling up the Cards seemed foolish to me.

So Bedard's opinion is that because Whisenhunt pulled his starters, McCarthy was obligated to do the same? I guess that's what passes for sports journalism these days. If Bedard were a member of this forum, he would not be seen as one of the more insightful ones.

[pack4to84]

You can see it in KW face what he thought of this game. Also looks like MM wasn't please with that look.

[sheepshead]

Great pic and how about the dead fish handshake?

[SkinBasket]

I say horseshit. The Packers looked relaxed, comfortable and confident. They scored because Arizona couldn't stop them, not because they didn't want to. Arizona certainly isn't a good enough team to be playing this whole smug "we didn't even try" routine.

Hopefully MCCarthy isn't so incompetent that he can't find a way to get the team fired up about wiping the dumb smirks off their faces and scoring twice as many points next week.

[Guiness]

While zona might not have put their best foot forward, I'm sure they didn't go out intending to get whitewashed by 4 scores. Sure we'll see a different team next week, most notably at QB, but it's not like we were playing the JV squad.

Fitzgerald was in there to catch the TD for them at the end of the game, and he is arguably their best player. Not everyone was resting.

My guess is the Arizona wanted to keep it a game without showing too much of their hand, but that went out the window when we went up by two scores.

[retailguy]

I think AZ is pissed. That look on Whisenhunt kinda says it all.

I'm not looking forward to next week. I suspect we'll get all AZ has to give, and maybe then some. Hopefully we're ready to handle it, or AZ might look like they did last season against Carolina.

[Joemailman]

Pissed about what? Pissed that the Packers came to play football instead of taking the day off? I'm sure Arizona will come really ready to play. It would be pretty pathetic if they don't. I like the fact that the Packers came in with an aggressive attitude. Maybe Whisenhunt thinks his team was entitled to an easy day because they're the defending NFC champs. I'm glad the Packers didn't give it to them.

[swede]

I agree with the poster who said that this game was good for the Pack but really means nothing to the Cards. It doesn't mean anybody is in anybody'd head or anything. It means little, and what little it does is that a young Packer team gained a bit of confidence.

I did not care for some of G. Bedard's comments in his live game blog - and one from M. Hunt, too - which suggested that somehow the Packers were pissing off the Cards by playing their starters and putting a sting on the Cards. What? From all I've read, the Packers didn't do much that was exotic - basic defense and offense - and there seemed to be no attempt to show anyone up. It's just that MM decided to play his starters longer. So Bedard's comments about riling up the Cards seemed foolish to me.

So Bedard's opinion is that because Whisenhunt pulled his starters, McCarthy was obligated to do the same? I guess that's what passes for sports journalism these days. If Bedard were a member of this forum, he would not be seen as one of the more insightful ones.

That is so amusing to contemplate.

[get louder at lambeau]

I agree with the poster who said that this game was good for the Pack but really means nothing to the Cards. It doesn't mean anybody is in anybody'd head or anything. It means little, and what little it does is that a young Packer team gained a bit of confidence.

I did not care for some of G. Bedard's comments in his live game blog - and one from M. Hunt, too - which suggested that somehow the Packers were pissing off the Cards by playing their starters and putting a sting on the Cards. What? From all I've read, the Packers didn't do much that was exotic - basic defense and offense - and there seemed to be no attempt to show anyone up. It's just that MM decided to play his starters longer. So Bedard's comments about riling up the Cards seemed foolish to me.

So Bedard's opinion is that because Whisenhunt pulled his starters, McCarthy was obligated to do the same? I guess that's what passes for sports journalism these days. If Bedard were a member of this forum, he would not be seen as one of the more insightful ones.

That is so amusing to contemplate.

And so true.

[mraynrand]

I agree with the poster who said that this game was good for the Pack but really means nothing to the Cards. It doesn't mean anybody is in anybody'd head or anything. It means little, and what little it does is that a young Packer team gained a bit of confidence.

I did not care for some of G. Bedard's comments in his live game blog - and one from M. Hunt, too - which suggested that somehow the Packers were pissing off the Cards by playing their starters and putting a sting on the Cards. What? From all I've read, the Packers didn't do much that was exotic - basic defense and offense - and there seemed to be no attempt to show anyone up. It's just that MM decided to play his starters longer. So Bedard's comments about riling up the Cards seemed foolish to me.

So Bedard's opinion is that because Whisenhunt pulled his starters, McCarthy was obligated to do the same? I guess that's what passes for sports journalism these days. If Bedard were a member of this forum, he would not be seen as one of the more insightful ones.

That is so amusing to contemplate.

Bedard minus the inside access he gets due to reporter status = Gex

[retailguy]

I agree with the poster who said that this game was good for the Pack but really means nothing to the Cards. It doesn't mean anybody is in anybody'd head or anything. It means little, and what little it does is that a young Packer team gained a bit of confidence.

I did not care for some of G. Bedard's comments in his live game blog - and one from M. Hunt, too - which suggested that somehow the Packers were pissing off the Cards by playing their starters and putting a sting on the Cards. What? From all I've read, the Packers didn't do much that was exotic - basic defense and offense - and there seemed to be no attempt to show anyone up. It's just that MM decided to play his starters longer. So Bedard's comments about riling up the Cards seemed foolish to me.

So Bedard's opinion is that because Whisenhunt pulled his starters, McCarthy was obligated to do the same? I guess that's what passes for sports journalism these days. If Bedard were a member of this forum, he would not be seen as one of the more insightful ones.

I think McCarthy's comment of "be humble" has it's place here as well.

Bedard is paid well for his opinion, and is right more often then not. As to Hunt - I was watching the game and thinking the same thing....

I'm trying to "be humble". So grateful to be in the playoffs with one more game, but trying not to be over confident about it. AZ can be a good team, and they can run with us *some weeks*. Is this one? I don't know.

[mraynrand]

Bedard is paid well for his opinion, and is right more often then not.

I'd like to see the stats on that.

[retailguy]

Bedard is paid well for his opinion, and is right more often then not.

I'd like to see the stats on that.

It comes from that "inside information" that you and I don't have.

[get louder at lambeau]

[Bedard is paid well for his opinion,

Something tells me being a below average sports reporter in a declining newspaper industry doesn't pay that well.

[Cleft Crusty]

[Bedard is paid well for his opinion,

Something tells me being a below average sports reporter in a declining newspaper industry doesn't pay that well.

About 57 cents/hour. You can live on it, but cat food isn't as nutritious as advertised.