One Exec "Packers Have Much Work To Do"

[Cleft Crusty]

I disagree completely. There was a far greater gap between Jordy's drop off from the Superbowl win to the Giants loss than in the case of Jennings drop off. From a chemistry standpoint, Jennings had the same number of targets and receptions in both games.

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game tape. There were three plays where, had the precision and timing been there between Jennings and Rodgers, the Packers score three touchdowns. However, I should have said Superbowl run when referring to the overall contribution of Jennings to last years championship. Nelson was also good in the Superbowl against the fifth and sixth d-backs of the Steelers. Jennings was outstanding against their top corners and at times, double safety help from both Clark and Polamalu. Jennings and Nelson both have their strengths and they are mostly non-overlapping. nevertheless, the chemistry between Rodgers and Jennings has been far more critical.

[woodbuck27]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game tape. There were three plays where, had the precision and timing been there between Jennings and Rodgers, the Packers score three touchdowns. However, I should have said Superbowl run when referring to the overall contribution of Jennings to last years championship. Nelson was also good in the Superbowl against the fifth and sixth d-backs of the Steelers. Jennings was outstanding against their top corners and at times, double safety help from both Clark and Polamalu. Jennings and Nelson both have their strengths and they are mostly non-overlapping. nevertheless, the chemistry between Rodgers and Jennings has been far more critical.

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD

Ask Scott if he watched that game?

How often does he really concentrate on watching a Green Bay Packer game?

It amazes me the different perspectives that are divulged on this forum.

If A impacts B and results in C.

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that 'C' was bad?

[Cleft Crusty]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD

Ask Scott if he watched that game?

How often does he really concentrate on watching a Green Bay Packer game?

It amazes me the different perspectives that are divulged on this forum.

If A impacts B and results in C.

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that 'C' was bad?

I say this with all due respect possible: I can recognize prescription drug overdose from a mile away. Call the poison hotline immediately.

[swede]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD

Ask Scott if he watched that game?

How often does he really concentrate on watching a Green Bay Packer game?

It amazes me the different perspectives that are divulged on this forum.

If A impacts B and results in C.

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that 'C' was bad?

I'll take Good, Bad, or Indifferent for $50, Alex.

[Brandon494]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game tape. There were three plays where, had the precision and timing been there between Jennings and Rodgers, the Packers score three touchdowns. However, I should have said Superbowl run when referring to the overall contribution of Jennings to last years championship. Nelson was also good in the Superbowl against the fifth and sixth d-backs of the Steelers. Jennings was outstanding against their top corners and at times, double safety help from both Clark and Polamalu. Jennings and Nelson both have their strengths and they are mostly non-overlapping. nevertheless, the chemistry between Rodgers and Jennings has been far more critical.

Yup

[Scott Campbell]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD

.......unless you're trying to rank our 15 win defense last in the league. Than your precious stats are indisputable.

[RashanGary]

I agree Jennings is our most important passing weapon for the reason sited above. Let Driver and Jones go. Extend Jennings. Bring in some cheap, young help.

Lang shouldn't be hard to resign at all. Sitton is far better and got a very doable deal. Lang should get half that.


The Raji/Matthew/Rodgers sweepstakes are going to be the interesting ones to follow.

[Scott Campbell]

Ask Scott if he watched that game?

Quit being such a sniveling coward and ask yourself.

[sharpe1027]

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD

Ask Scott if he watched that game?

How often does he really concentrate on watching a Green Bay Packer game?

It amazes me the different perspectives that are divulged on this forum.

If A impacts B and results in C.

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that 'C' was bad?

I'm sure it made sense at the time, but wow.

[woodbuck27]

I say this with all due respect possible: I can recognize prescription drug overdose from a mile away. Call the poison hotline immediately.

Is your contribution football related? Do you imagine your post even resembles whit or anything even marginally close to being classified as humour?

Your acting poorly. Do you enjoy that?

[woodbuck27]

I'm sure it made sense at the time, but wow.

Originally Posted by woodbuck27

That's what happens when you rely on stats over actually watching the game. PERIOD

OK if I make a very slight REVISION is my post clear or acceptable to you? That revision*


Ask Scott if he watched that game?

How often does he really concentrate on watching a Green Bay Packer game?

It amazes me the different perspectives that are divulged on this forum.

If A impacts B and results in C.

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that * ie 'C' was bad?

I hope this * makes my question clear..

[Patler]

I think they need to keep Jennings. Of all of the guys on the roster, I think the most important ones for long-term success are Rodgers, Matthews, Jennings, and Raji.

Can't argue with that list based on the roster today.

[sharpe1027]

'C' is clearly defined and characterized as 'Good, Bad or indifferent. How can two fans see it and disagree on the fact that * ie 'C' was bad?

I hope this * makes my question clear..

What is 'it'? Why is 'C' clearly defined? By whom? Is it really "clearly defined" when two fans disagree on the definition?

[Scott Campbell]

Can't argue with that list based on the roster today.

I wouldn't argue with it either. But it's fluid, and Tramon might have even showed up on it last year.

How much do you think the Rodgers deal will average?

[Scott Campbell]

What is 'it'? Why is 'C' clearly defined? By whom? Is it really "clearly defined" when two fans disagree on the definition?

The under/over line on his response length is 12 paragraphs. And I'm betting the over.