Are you kidding me....Jets off a bye week?

[MichiganPackerFan]

Teams can come out of the bye flat as a pancake too. Why do think the NFL would conspire against the Packers in its schedulemaking? Isn't that a little like saying that the refs always have it in for the Pack...until a game like last night when the Vikings apparently got hurt by bad calls more than GB?

I don't know about a conspiracy, but we've had several games with unbalanced calls. It's open season on Rodgers for helmet to helmet hits, Clay can be held at will by the facemask. These are obvious calls that have only been going one way.

[steve823]

That's why I'm really hoping Jenkins and Picket are able to play. Even one of them will help us a lot.

Honestly, I'd rather have guys sit out for the Jets game if they aren't at least 85% healthy. We are extremely thin on the defensive DL...we need guys to get healthy for the long term. Continuing to play guys at 75% and risking reinjury (like Pickett experienced yesterday) is foolish...it winds up putting you right where Green Bay was yesterday, playing Zombo at DE. Chalk up the Jets game as a likely loss and save your ammo for the games that matter most if the guys still aren't healthy.

A week of rest next week...one game against the Cowboys...another off week after that. For guys with lingering injuries, that would be the best case scenario at going into the stretch run at least marginally healthy. We need the games against DAL, ATL and MIN far more than we need the NYJ game.

I agree, but you also have to give your team the best chance to win. The Jets have the best O-line when it comes to run blocking and LT is looking great again. Their offense revolves around the run.

I mean if we are playing O-linemen and skinny lb's as our d-linemen I can easily see the Jets running it 40 to 50 times against us, especially since we have no depth there.

[MadScientist]

At this point, I'm fine with a loss to the Jets...as long as we get the W against the Cowboys the week after.

Shame, shame, shame. What would Vince say to that statement? You should never be fine with a loss.

[Tarlam!]

What would Vince say to that statement? You should never be fine with a loss.

The Jets are getting a lot of love from the pundits. If the Pack could knock 'em over, that would send a message. I say, play to win!

[TennesseePackerBacker]

That's why I'm really hoping Jenkins and Picket are able to play. Even one of them will help us a lot.

Honestly, I'd rather have guys sit out for the Jets game if they aren't at least 85% healthy. We are extremely thin on the defensive DL...we need guys to get healthy for the long term. Continuing to play guys at 75% and risking reinjury (like Pickett experienced yesterday) is foolish...it winds up putting you right where Green Bay was yesterday, playing Zombo at DE. Chalk up the Jets game as a likely loss and save your ammo for the games that matter most if the guys still aren't healthy.

A week of rest next week...one game against the Cowboys...another off week after that. For guys with lingering injuries, that would be the best case scenario at going into the stretch run at least marginally healthy. We need the games against DAL, ATL and MIN far more than we need the NYJ game.

Jesus, I can't believe you're really talking about just giving the Jets the W. I don't know what you've seen to make you think the Jets are world-beaters but I'd really love to know. The Sanchize certainly isn't one of the elite quarterbacks in this league. Yea, they might run over us, but so did the Vikings (as I predicted, as a blind man could) and how did that work out for us?

I fully believe this game against the Jets will be ultra-competitive. Probably another 3-7 point win or loss for us. And yes, I see your point about how the AFC game is no where near as meaningful to us as those three NFC games, but that doesn't mean the Packers don't try everything to win.

Like someone stated in another thread, I've seen plenty of teams come out completely flat off of a bye-week. The Jets game will be much closer than many of you think. I think we win again, especially if our offensive line plays any where near the level they did against the Vikings.

[Tarlam!]

Nice, rousing post TPB! Pass the Kool-Aid!

I agree fully with the sentiment!

[Joemailman]

That's why I'm really hoping Jenkins and Picket are able to play. Even one of them will help us a lot.

Honestly, I'd rather have guys sit out for the Jets game if they aren't at least 85% healthy. We are extremely thin on the defensive DL...we need guys to get healthy for the long term. Continuing to play guys at 75% and risking reinjury (like Pickett experienced yesterday) is foolish...it winds up putting you right where Green Bay was yesterday, playing Zombo at DE. Chalk up the Jets game as a likely loss and save your ammo for the games that matter most if the guys still aren't healthy.

A week of rest next week...one game against the Cowboys...another off week after that. For guys with lingering injuries, that would be the best case scenario at going into the stretch run at least marginally healthy. We need the games against DAL, ATL and MIN far more than we need the NYJ game.

Jesus, I can't believe you're really talking about just giving the Jets the W. I don't know what you've seen to make you think the Jets are world-beaters but I'd really love to know. The Sanchize certainly isn't one of the elite quarterbacks in this league. Yea, they might run over us, but so did the Vikings (as I predicted, as a blind man could) and how did that work out for us?

I fully believe this game against the Jets will be ultra-competitive. Probably another 3-7 point win or loss for us. And yes, I see your point about how the AFC game is no where near as meaningful to us as those three NFC games, but that doesn't mean the Packers don't try everything to win.

Like someone stated in another thread, I've seen plenty of teams come out completely flat off of a bye-week. The Jets game will be much closer than many of you think. I think we win again, especially if our offensive line plays any where near the level they did against the Vikings.

I agree this game should be competitive. However, I agree with Leaper that it doesn't make sense to try to rush guys too early back from injury just to try to win one game.

The Packers are likely to give up a lot of yards Sunday. If they can toughen up in the red zone and force the Jets to settle mainly for field goals instead of touchdowns, they have a chance in this one.

[denverYooper]

Fuggem.

The thing about this Packers of these last 2 years is that they often play to the level of their competition (aside from the 2 Vikings games last year) for better and for worse. That last game was a gut check for the Pack, now they have a little confidence too.

They lost to two pretty good teams the two weeks previous. The Dolphins are a pretty good football team. Washington is also making a case. I think our defense is underrated, despite the injuries. It seems a combination of some backups being better than people realize, guys playing their asses off, and the coaches doing a hell of a job of putting them in positions to keep mistakes from getting out of control. Let them run it. They'll get yards but will be limited to 20 points.

If we run out of D Linemen we might be in trouble. If the offense sucks again and shits the bed on 3rd downs, we may be in trouble. If Special Teams gives up multiple big returns and/or points, we're in trouble. But if those guys on the D Line hold out, offensive rhythm continues, and penalties stay down Green Bay wins outright.

[channtheman]

I'm predicting another blowout loss to the tune of 31-10 Jets.

[The Leaper]

Shame, shame, shame. What would Vince say to that statement? You should never be fine with a loss.

Vince didn't have salary caps or a 53 man roster...and he also never faced a well rested, well prepared opponent coming off a bye week.

This ain't 1960.

[imscott72]

We're going to get smoked. I just hope no one gets seriously hurt.

[Joemailman]

I'm predicting another blowout loss to the tune of 31-10 Jets.

It worked last week!

[Tarlam!]

OK, the original premise of the thread has now morphed into a Jets Week thread, which is cool by me. But rather than start another thread, I'll throw this thought out to you here.


Why can't the NFL have a schedule where only two weeks of the season have byes? Like, week 7 & 8 or week 8 & 9, resting 2 AFL and NFC division respectively?

My ex-assistant could have done that between painting her forefinger and pinky!

[Little Whiskey]

OK, the original premise of the thread has now morphed into a Jets Week thread, which is cool by me. But rather than start another thread, I'll throw this thought out to you here.


Why can't the NFL have a schedule where only two weeks of the season have byes? Like, week 7 & 8 or week 8 & 9, resting 2 AFL and NFC division respectively?

My ex-assistant could have done that between painting her forefinger and pinky!

think of the amount of lost revenue in those two weeks. half the teams would be off one week and the other half the next week. you could potetially have half of the country not watching football one week and the other half the next week.

if you mix them up, you have a better chance of no let off. since im an nfc north follower. if the pack doesn't play, i will probably watch the bears or viks or lions. if none of those teams are playing, i might not watch much football that weekend. ......and i'd be pissed!

[Tarlam!]

Great points, LW.