TWO QUESTIONS I HAVE AFTER A NEAR DEFEAT

[Smidgeon]

This. This is why I thought the Pack could lose this game. In addition to the desperation of the Giants; they seem to play best for Coughlin when their backs are to the wall.

NFC: Saints

AFC: Steelers, Patriots, in that order.

I said it another thread, but I "fear" the teams with elite QBs that can put on a Kurt Warner game. And the three teams you mentioned are the three that have that QB.

[pbmax]

Doesn't that add up to about 7-8 bad plays. The Giants had two total sacks. maybe it's just me, but this didn't seem like the disaster others have pictured it as.

It was not a disaster or free for all, but Rodgers was on the move (and I don't count his runs when the Giants had everyone underneath in coverage) more than normal. Several times he simply bailed right of JPP or whoever was on RDE/Newhouse flashed getting around the corner.

That plus Tuck and other guy pressure up the middle made the pocket uncomfortable.

[denverYooper]

good post. Also, Manning gets rattled and throws picks in bushels. He was rattled about a quarter into the game - after the pick six - and the Packers really didn't get after him. I've seen it where you can beat the Giants in a short stretch of plays if you go after Eli when he is in panic mode.

Here's where being Bishop-less might have hurt GB some. He's been a decent blitzer and usually lays a pretty good lick. One good pop from him at that point might have made Eli a lot less comfortable for a bit.

[pbmax]

good post. Also, Manning gets rattled and throws picks in bushels. He was rattled about a quarter into the game - after the pick six - and the Packers really didn't get after him. I've seen it where you can beat the Giants in a short stretch of plays if you go after Eli when he is in panic mode.

But wouldn't you say the Pack had more pressure on Manning than almost any other QB this year? Not sure they could have gotten more without selling out coverage.

[mraynrand]

But wouldn't you say the Pack had more pressure on Manning than almost any other QB this year? Not sure they could have gotten more without selling out coverage.

You're probably right that they would have put themselves at risk for a big play with extreme blitzing, especially since, as Yoop points out, their second best pass rusher (Bishop) was out.

[Deputy Nutz]

I don't care where the Packers play the Saints, and what kind of weather they play them in, the Saints are a threat. They can actually run the ball and Brees has a new weapon in a sure handed tight end in Graham that could do some damage on short throws and running after the catch.

In the AFC there are three teams that could expose the Packers, The Ravens have a defense to go head to head with the Packers offense, and their offense is just good enough to put enough points on the board to make the game interesting. The Packers will have no answer for the Patriots' offense. The two biggest weapons the Pats have are their tight ends and news flash: The Packers have trouble covering tight ends. Not to mention Wes Welker. The Steelers are still stingy on defense but I don't think they have the secondary to match the Packers wide receivers. Sure they will get pressure but I think the Packers have enough big plays in them to beat the Steelers. Nothing the Steelers do on offense scares me, but they are a well run franchise that traditionally causes problems for the Packers and any team in the NFL, they don't usually get blown out and keep the game close.

49ers don't have a chance against the Packers, neither do the Bears, or the Falcons.

[ThunderDan]

On a tangent, D pass rating is much better in the AFC than the NFC. Does the AFC have that much better of a defence as a whole, or are the NFC qb's that much better?

Yes to both.

Who are the elite QBs this year? Rodgers, Brees, Brady

Looking at rating you have, in order with 90+ rating: Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Romo, Shaub(IR), E Manning, A Smith, Roethlisberger, and Stafford.

6 Active NFC QBs and 2 Active AFC QBs.

[Fritz]

Somewhere along the way - probably in the playoffs, I'm afraid - a defense will rise up and slow down the Packer offense. And the defense of the Pack willnot be able to get the job done.

[pbmax]

Somewhere along the way - probably in the playoffs, I'm afraid - a defense will rise up and slow down the Packer offense. And the defense of the Pack willnot be able to get the job done.

We have already kind of seen that with Detroit, Tampa and the Giants. The Packers still score. The determining factor is the number of possessions. The Giants ran well enough to limit possession but coughed up a pick 6 and faded in the middle of the game. Detroit no longer had the weapons to keep possession. Tampa had Blount but not enough of anything else.

[pbmax]

I don't care where the Packers play the Saints, and what kind of weather they play them in, the Saints are a threat. They can actually run the ball and Brees has a new weapon in a sure handed tight end in Graham that could do some damage on short throws and running after the catch.

In the AFC there are three teams that could expose the Packers, The Ravens have a defense to go head to head with the Packers offense, and their offense is just good enough to put enough points on the board to make the game interesting. The Packers will have no answer for the Patriots' offense. The two biggest weapons the Pats have are their tight ends and news flash: The Packers have trouble covering tight ends. Not to mention Wes Welker. The Steelers are still stingy on defense but I don't think they have the secondary to match the Packers wide receivers. Sure they will get pressure but I think the Packers have enough big plays in them to beat the Steelers. Nothing the Steelers do on offense scares me, but they are a well run franchise that traditionally causes problems for the Packers and any team in the NFL, they don't usually get blown out and keep the game close.

49ers don't have a chance against the Packers, neither do the Bears, or the Falcons.

Not as concerned as Nutz about the Patriots. Packers versus Patriots on a neutral field would be an O/U of 85.

Ravens do have the defense. But that offense is not frightening and their o line doesn't run block as well as you would expect. They can protect Flacco so even more than Manning, pressure would be paramount since he will fold.

Houston is a puzzle. They might be world beaters or they might be the 49ers.

[mraynrand]

We have already kind of seen that with Detroit, Tampa and the Giants. The Packers still score. The determining factor is the number of possessions. The Giants ran well enough to limit possession but coughed up a pick 6 and faded in the middle of the game. Detroit no longer had the weapons to keep possession. Tampa had Blount but not enough of anything else.

That's why the Saints present a real problem. They can run the ball, but have a lights out passing game that prevents any thoughts of 8 in the box. Ravens and 49ers depend on play action. So the Saints can possess the ball against the Packers and limit the Packers' possessions. But they don't have to sacrifice scoring to do it.

The Saint's worst enemy actually may be the fact that they really love their passing game. They can be balanced, but sometimes they forget to do it.

[Pugger]

Are the Saints as formidable on the road and on grass?

[Bossman641]

I don't think any team can stop the Packer offense. The opposing team has to have a dynamite QB and be able to put up points on their own, and then hope for just enough stops and or fumbles/interceptions. Only teams that really fit the bill for me are New England and the Saints. Baltimore could be a possibility but I don't see Flacco being able to do it for a full game. Pittsburgh doesn't have enough offense IMO.

[Zool]

I don't think any team can stop the Packer offense. The opposing team has to have a dynamite QB and be able to put up points on their own, and then hope for just enough stops and or fumbles/interceptions. Only teams that really fit the bill for me are New England and the Saints. Baltimore could be a possibility but I don't see Flacco being able to do it for a full game. Pittsburgh doesn't have enough offense IMO.

I actually think Pitt has the perfect O to do it. 2 fast WR's and a good enough running game. Peprah is not playing sound at all this year.

[Deputy Nutz]

New England has the only offense in the AFC to match the Packers point for point. Both defenses are very similar. The Saints and the Packers also meet up very evenly, and yes they don't need turf to beat the Packers they were a two point conversion away from tying the Packers at home on opening night. Cold and shitty weather doesn't play into the Packers hands, and it benefits the Saints running game. Wind will be the main deterrent to the passing game for both teams, no wind, no problems regardless of field conditions or the cold.