Who from IR would make a difference in the Super Bowl?

[mmmdk]

It's Finley. Just look at when the Bears game got tight and it was third and four and Rodgers put the ball spot on to Quarless - and it slithered through his hands. Finley would be the go-to guy that nobody could cover. He'd be the third down answer.

Finley.

Finley it is; the rest have been replaced nicely. Some injuries turn out to be a blessing...if you have guys that steps up & that we have.

Some of these PR injury tweets/posts are as smart as Barnett & Finley on Twitter....as in "they won't go away" Thank Buddha that we mainly lost cannon fodder players sans a very, very few. All hail the replacements as they actually will play and have done so - much better than expected.

[Packers4Glory]

Finley. I really believe he was going to be the best TE in football this yr and he was off to that type of start. Nobody could cover him and having him roam the middle of the field was just an unfair advantage. His loss is the reason we see an inconsistent offense more than anything else. His loss was a reason their was a light shining on the glaring weakness that is our running game.

If you want a 2nd guy its Grant.



CLiff Notes

Finley
/thread

[Scott Campbell]

Finley, Neal, Grant

I know Starks looks solid, but Grant gets more consistent yards. In our offense, Grant is a really nice fit. He might not make that last guy miss so his big runs are way down, but he gets steady tough yards, keeps AR in good down and distances and is very reliable.

I think Neal is a fantastic player. He would make us better some way some how

Finley is a superstar. He changes defenses.

Agreed - Finley, Neal and Grant. Those 3 guys make this roster downright scary.

[bobblehead]

Agreed - Finley, Neal and Grant. Those 3 guys make this roster downright scary.

Ok, Neal may help some, but we will be playing the fatties quite a bit and I think neal would have merely been rotational. Grant....you can't really run on Pitt anyway.

Finley's new nickname should be "the question". but I maintain that if I could have 2 players off the IR fully healthy Brad Jones should be the second.

[Guiness]

Based on our needs on the field, Brad Jones is the guy we should want back. Next best hope is that Walden or Zombo will be good to go!

Finley's next. We also don't have a replacement for him. I had hopes Lee would play like the starter he did a couple of years ago, but it didn't happen, and Quarless, well, is a rookie. However, passing O is good without him.

Next is Grant. I don't think Starks has fully replaced him yet by any means. By the end of TC next year, he could very well grow into the role enough that they share the backfield, but he's not there yet.

I don't get the love for Neale. He might be good, but he certainly hasn't shown us enough yet to be sure he'll be effective at all. Having him back would be a guess at best.

[MJZiggy]

Pouncey. he he.

[pittstang5]

I had hopes Lee would play like the starter he did a couple of years ago, but it didn't happen, and Quarless, well, is a rookie. However, passing O is good without him.

Guiness, you bring something up that I keep thinking about...Where is Lee? He's caught a couple TDs, but they've been all short yardage. Even his other catches have been screens. Granted Quarless is a faster guy and a better deep threat, but Lee could be that 5-7 yard across the middle guy, but I don't see him there. He's more of a blocker now. They must be phasing him out and I don't see him on the roster next year.

[get louder at lambeau]

Chiller - with the way they use Woodson now, I don't think he would improve things.

Chillar can play ILB, OLB, and safety in the "Big Okie" for short yardage. He'd be nice to have around. He's not at the top of the list, but if guys like Brad Jones are being mentioned, Chillar deserves to be mentioned too. I think he plays Special Teams too.