Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

'You would have thought we lost in that locker room'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 'You would have thought we lost in that locker room'

    Today's presser is full of nuggets. M3 is breaking out some real gems and bantering with the press. He's dropped the front he usually puts on for the pressers. I LIKE this M3. One thing that really jumped out was this pretty candid statement:

    He stated today that the "team needs to be more realistic... You'd have thought we lost in that locker room"

    To me, this perhaps means that they were perhaps just as overconfident as last year and bought into their own hype again. It seems as though they're stunned that they didn't just roll over the Lions yesterday.
    When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro ~Hunter S.

  • #2
    You would have thought they lost at my house too.

    It was pathetic. We have a much better team than that.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by retailguy
      You would have thought they lost at my house too.

      It was pathetic. We have a much better team than that.
      ...you been keeping a better team at your house?
      PackerRats Thompson D. Yahoo Fantasy Football Champ 2019,
      PackerRats Thompson D. Yahoo Fantasy Football Champ 2018,
      PackerRats Pick'Em 2016-17 Champ + Packers year Survival Football Champ 2017,
      Rats Yahoo Fantasy Football Champ 2013,
      Ratz Survival Football Champ 2012,
      PackerRats1 Yahoo Fantasy Football Champ 2006.

      Comment


      • #4
        I saw an AP story that Rogers had commented to the media that he wanted a more wide-open shotgun offense. It was weirdly Favrian.
        I believe in God, family, Baylor University, and the Green Bay Packers.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by NewsBruin
          I saw an AP story that Rogers had commented to the media that he wanted a more wide-open shotgun offense. It was weirdly Favrian.
          Not exactly. Favrian would have been:

          "You could run a wide-open, spread 'em out offense and that might be OK. But that isn't necessarily the answer. Running the ball with TEs has worked before. Could we do it? Yeah, I think so. But would it be the best way? That's tough to say."
          Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by NewsBruin
            I saw an AP story that Rogers had commented to the media that he wanted a more wide-open shotgun offense. It was weirdly Favrian.
            I'm observing that Aaron Rodgers is easily, if not more open to the press in his views concerning what the teams brass might do to help him be the QB he wants to be. Approach ' the reality of ' being truly valued and demonstrative as 'a certainly best' NFL QB.

            The winner he believes he is. Good for Aaron Rodgers.

            GO Aaron GO!
            ** Since 2006 3 X Pro Pickem' Champion; 4 X Runner-Up and 3 X 3rd place.
            ** To download Jesus Loves Me ring tones, you'll need a cell phone mame
            ** If God doesn't fish, play poker or pull for " the Packers ", exactly what does HE do with his buds?
            ** Rather than love, money or fame - give me TRUTH: Henry D. Thoreau

            Comment


            • #7
              sounds to me like the team IS being realistic. they nearly gave away a game for the second week in a row. their confidence is shot. mm has to come up with a game plan to get that back. ball control passing! mix in a run and take what they're giving us.

              Comment


              • #8
                Time to put your big boy pants on guys. I was getting sick of all the preseason superbowl talk and the dressing up like cowboys for that dinner. I mean we all know you have talent but that doesn't mean you don't have to show up and put in the work. I think we are lucky to be 3-1.

                Comment


                • #9
                  We are unlucky we arent 4-0
                  Swede: My expertise in this area is extensive. The essential difference between a "battleship" and an "aircraft carrier" is that an aircraft carrier requires five direct hits to sink, but it takes only four direct hits to sink a battleship.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tony Oday
                    We are unlucky we arent 4-0
                    This

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      In the words of Bill Parcells: "You are what your record says you are." The Packers are 3-1 and tied for the best record in the NFC. There are no style points here. Either you win on Sunday or you don't. People might think yesterday looked bad. At the end of the year, if it comes down to tie-breakers, the Lions game will count as a win, a division win and a conference win. It doesn't get much better than that.
                      I can't run no more
                      With that lawless crowd
                      While the killers in high places
                      Say their prayers out loud
                      But they've summoned, they've summoned up
                      A thundercloud
                      They're going to hear from me - Leonard Cohen

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        MM is the one who needs to be realistic and stop spewing the nonsense about the running game being fine. Our running game is pathetic. Stop chucking passes 40 yards downfield and incorporate a short passing game that takes advantage of our strength.

                        I really don't care that we ran the clock out against the Lions. Against a real team, we wouldn't be able to gain a yard. Our OL looks mediocre. Our RBs look pedestrian. Sure, Kuhn gives it his all...but that doesn't mean he belongs anywhere near a starting RB role in the NFL. If he's the best you've got, then you've got jack shit.
                        My signature has NUDITY in it...whatcha gonna do?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The Leaper
                          If he's the best you've got, then you've got jack shit.
                          Well, he has an interesting family history.

                          Jack Schitt is the only son of Awe Schitt, a well-known fertilizer magnate, and O. Schitt, the owner of prosperous cleaning firm Needeep N. Schitt, Inc. In 1975, Jack Schitt married travelling gypsy Noe Schitt, and the deeply religious couple produced six children: Holie Schitt, Giva Schitt, Fulla Schitt, Bull Schitt, and the twins Deep Schitt and Dip Schitt. Desite her parents' objections, Deep Schitt married Dumb Schitt, a high school dropout. After being happily married for 15 years, however, Jack and Noe Schitt divorced, with Noe later marrying Ted Sherlock. Because her kids were living with them, she decided to keep her previous name, becoming known as Noe Schitt-Sherlock.
                          Meanwhile, Dip Schitt married Loda Schitt, producing a son with a rather nervous disposition named Chicken Schitt. Two of the other six children, Fulla Schitt and Giva Schitt, were inseparable throughout childhood and subsequently married the Happens brothers in a dual ceremony. The wedding announcement in their local newspaper announced the Schitt-Happens nuptials, and their children were subsequently named Dawg, Byrd, and Horse. Bull Schitt, the prodigal son, left home to tour the world, recently returning from Italy with his new Italian bride, Pisa Schitt.
                          I can't run no more
                          With that lawless crowd
                          While the killers in high places
                          Say their prayers out loud
                          But they've summoned, they've summoned up
                          A thundercloud
                          They're going to hear from me - Leonard Cohen

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by billy_oliver880
                            Time to put your big boy pants on guys. I was getting sick of all the preseason superbowl talk and the dressing up like cowboys for that dinner. I mean we all know you have talent but that doesn't mean you don't have to show up and put in the work. I think we are lucky to be 3-1.
                            Your point isn't inaccurate. We didn't exactly look too splendid as the Eagles game came down to the wire. The Lions could very well of pulled off an upset yesterday.

                            but ...

                            The bottom line is we are 3 and 1. In the NFC that's very good to this point in the schedule; in our division that's almost 'a Gold' seeing what da Bears did Vs ' the NY Giants ' last night and the way the NFL is to this point unfolding as a whole with only a few teams firing all guns.

                            We'll take that 3 and 1 to the bank won't we? Re-assess given the latest injuries.

                            GO PACKERS!
                            ** Since 2006 3 X Pro Pickem' Champion; 4 X Runner-Up and 3 X 3rd place.
                            ** To download Jesus Loves Me ring tones, you'll need a cell phone mame
                            ** If God doesn't fish, play poker or pull for " the Packers ", exactly what does HE do with his buds?
                            ** Rather than love, money or fame - give me TRUTH: Henry D. Thoreau

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Leaper
                              MM is the one who needs to be realistic and stop spewing the nonsense about the running game being fine. Our running game is pathetic. Stop chucking passes 40 yards downfield and incorporate a short passing game that takes advantage of our strength.

                              I really don't care that we ran the clock out against the Lions. Against a real team, we wouldn't be able to gain a yard. Our OL looks mediocre. Our RBs look pedestrian. Sure, Kuhn gives it his all...but that doesn't mean he belongs anywhere near a starting RB role in the NFL. If he's the best you've got, then you've got jack shit.

                              The Packers used the short passing game very well against the Bears.

                              The Lions are a real team. They played well enough to beat Chicago, stood with the Vikings for a good amount of a game with backups, and gave Green Bay all it could handle. Look, they sucked for years but now have an actual organization with skilled coaching and talent. When you finish down in the heap, you get the top picks. You make good picks and you will have better talent than the teams that finished ahead of you. The Packers had no chance at Johnson, Stafford, and Suh.

                              It's tough to win in the NFL. The Packers had a collection of injury issues to deal with on defense against the Lions and going forward. If they are lucky, guys will get healthy and/or return to form.

                              I was initially down on the game, but it looks better in hindsight considering what the Packers were going through.
                              "Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X