The Official Pack-Queens Discussion Thread

[RashanGary]

I sort of agree, but don't see it being that high scoring

MN 17
GB 13

I saw nothing on Sunday that made me think the Packer's offensive problems from last year have been solved. Against a good defense, they will struggle as badly as last year. MN isn't likely to have a lot going on offense yet either.

Lacy looked pretty good to me. Rodgers looked to be throwing well unlike last year. WRs didn't seem much different, but let's wait and see. I have a feeling Cobb will have a big year. He's better than the injured version we saw last year.

[Upnorth]

three words...8 in the box!

Three words, memories of ex girlfriend

[wist43]

I sort of agree, but don't see it being that high scoring

MN 17
GB 13

I saw nothing on Sunday that made me think the Packer's offensive problems from last year have been solved. Against a good defense, they will struggle as badly as last year. MN isn't likely to have a lot going on offense yet either.

I arrived at 27-24 by thinking that Dom won't be able to help himself, and he will run a nickel and dime way too much - AP will have room to run. Throw in a turnover or two by GB, and I think Minnesota can get to 27.

As for Green Bay's 24, I'm throwing in a late 'trying to catch up' score.

I don't think it will be a 3 point game on the field... I think the Vikings will control the game throughout.

That said, I can easily see a 17-13 game as well.

[texaspackerbacker]

Here we go again, the usual suspects predicting bad things for the Packers.

I can't see the Vikings doing much against the Packers D. We load up to stop Peterson and let our DBs beat their receivers. If Aaron Rodgers is on his game, we score big against pretty much any D. Kick it out of the end zone, as Cordarelle Patterson is downright scary.

Packers 34 Vikings 20

[HarveyWallbangers]

Our CBs aren't that good without Shields. Randall is good. Rollins is okay. Gunter is below average.

[Patler]

Here we go again, the usual suspects predicting bad things for the Packers.

I can't see the Vikings doing much against the Packers D. We load up to stop Peterson and let our DBs beat their receivers. If Aaron Rodgers is on his game, we score big against pretty much any D. Kick it out of the end zone, as Cordarelle Patterson is downright scary.

Packers 34 Vikings 20

I don't usually find reasons to "bet" against the Packers, but I don't have a good feeling about this game, so I went with my gut. My biggest concerns are:

- success passing last week was on extended/broken plays, not the offense clicking.
- lots of miscommunications
- new stadium is said to be even louder than the old one, and specifically designed to be so
- fans will be rabid in the opening game of the new stadium.
- MN defense is solid front to back, with 1 or 2 really good ones at each level.

None of this bodes well for Packer's offense.

Packers will be quite inexperienced on defense, Ringo, Clark, Lowry, Martinez, Evans and Brice could all play significant rolls and have one game of experience. Thomas, Ryan, Rollins and Gunter could as well and have limited experience less than a year. Could be a difficult game for them.

[Smidgeon]

Lacy looked pretty good to me. Rodgers looked to be throwing well unlike last year. WRs didn't seem much different, but let's wait and see. I have a feeling Cobb will have a big year. He's better than the injured version we saw last year.

We need a WR again. Jordy may come back, but he isn't the future. They need another outside guy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We need a WR again. Jordy may come back, but he isn't the future. They need another outside guy.

They lack a stud, and I doubt Jordy can make a full comeback. The pleasant surprise has been Adams flashing big play ability.

[King Friday]

I saw nothing on Sunday that made me think the Packer's offensive problems from last year have been solved.

Well, that was actually a preseason game for our offense...since they hardly played at all in the true preseason. I thought Rodgers threw the ball more consistently than he did much of last year. The Jags have a very good defense too...and we hung 27 on them.

Somehow, against this massive brick wall that apparently is the greatest defense ever known to man...the Packers hung 30 on them at their place last season...coming off 3 losses and their offense looking like poo. Basically, Rodgers has mostly OWNED the Vikings. There is no reason to think that is suddenly going to stop simply because the Vikings built a huge bird-killing stadium. Rodgers isn't a bird, so he'll do just fine.

GB 23
MN 13

[Willard]

Here we go again, the usual suspects predicting bad things for the Packers.

I can't see the Vikings doing much against the Packers D. We load up to stop Peterson and let our DBs beat their receivers. If Aaron Rodgers is on his game, we score big against pretty much any D. Kick it out of the end zone, as Cordarelle Patterson is downright scary.

Packers 34 Vikings 20

I agree on Patterson. Don't let him break one. Contain AD, and blitz Sam. That dude is a statue in the pocket. I can easily see a Matthews/Perry strip/sack/score against Bradford. The Pack may need the turnovers to win because the Minny D is solid. But I think it is likely we pick one or strip one from Sammy boy. GB 26 (they tackle Sam for a safety too); MN 20.

[Patler]

Well, that was actually a preseason game for our offense...since they hardly played at all in the true preseason. I thought Rodgers threw the ball more consistently than he did much of last year. The Jags have a very good defense too...and we hung 27 on them.

On the other hand, Rodgers threw well short of his receiver a couple times again, just as we saw often in 2015; he completed less than 60% of his passes, gained a mediocre 199 yards passing and averaged less than 6 yards per attempt. He extended his string of games with a QB rating less than 100 to 13 consecutive games, and 15 of his last 16 games. Prior to the current string, he had never gone more than 4 games without achieving a QBR greater than 100, and that happened only once, I think. For perspective, his career QBR is 104.1. He has been less than his career average for 13 consecutive games.

Cobb and Nelson had six receptions each, but gained just 57 and 32 yards, respectively.

I think this is an indication that the Packers passing games is not fixed yet.

[Patler]

Somehow, against this massive brick wall that apparently is the greatest defense ever known to man...the Packers hung 30 on them at their place last season...coming off 3 losses and their offense looking like poo. Basically, Rodgers has mostly OWNED the Vikings. There is no reason to think that is suddenly going to stop simply because the Vikings built a huge bird-killing stadium. Rodgers isn't a bird, so he'll do just fine.

Who has suggested anything like that about the Vikings defense? I said they were "solid front to back", nothing more than that.

Are you forgetting that 15 of the 30 points GB scored in the Vikings temporary rental home came by way of 5 Crosby field goals, each 40 yards or longer? Not exactly an indication of a dominating offense. Of course, with the NFC North title on the line, the Vikings returned the favor by beating GB in their real home, the hallowed grounds of Lambeau field where GB should have a distinct advantage.

[Pugger]

Check out the last post on this page and take a look at the clips linked.

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=581168&start=120

[Guiness]

Three words, memories of ex girlfriend

JHC

[King Friday]

Of course, with the NFC North title on the line, the Vikings returned the favor by beating GB in their real home, the hallowed grounds of Lambeau field where GB should have a distinct advantage.

Well, to be honest, I'm never going to take that last week in 2015 into consideration. The Packers, like anyone else with a brain, realized that Washington was a far easier opponent than Seattle. There is no way a competent individual would go BALLS OUT to beat the Vikings and earn the more difficult playoff game. As such, I think using that game as a true measuring stick is flawed. There were other factors involved.