The Saints...whow!

[Greenbayphil]

Sorry to single you out, but I'm wondering if I'm the only one that doesn't agree with this line of thinking. Why will it tell us a lot? What will it tell us that the last eleven weeks have not? One game is one game. I just don't see how it tells us anything more than any of the other eleven games we've played.

He was referencing to the fact that it really starts to count after thanksgiving, to start picking up momentum. He said the saints came off a big win and that we will see if the Packers start to up the level and start gaining momentum going into the playoffs by playing the G-men this sunday.

 

[ExpatPacker]

He was referencing to the fact that it really starts to count after thanksgiving, to start picking up momentum. He said the saints came off a big win and that we will see if the Packers start to up the level and start gaining momentum going into the playoffs by playing the G-men this sunday.

What Greenbayphil said. To that I would also add that Rodgers has certainly been very good the last 2 games but he hasn't been great. Not like he has been. Another poster mentioned this too. I want to see if Rodgers can really start to ratchet it up for the final season push.

 

[ExpatPacker]

NFC Championship. Epic QB duel. Rodgers Vs. Brees. I'd still bet all my catnip mice on Rodgers. I think when it comes down to it, he will outplay the Saints offense. If you want to break it down even further, our offensive line should out perform theirs. We have the better receiving threat. They may have an edge on the run game, but I don't think that will tip the scales for them. The interesting thing about this game would be the two defenses, both have struggled. But I really think if this game were to occur, we'd have a QB duel/ shootout.

Actually that's what concerns me. One of the reasons why ARod hasn't destroyed the last two teams is that he's been under pressure a lot. I mean, watching the Pats-Eagles game and seeing Brady take apart the Eagle defense, I'll tell you what, Brady has TONS more time to throw back there than Rodgers has for the past two weeks. When's the last time Rodgers could just stand there in the pocket practically all day and check off receivers the way that Brady was able to do over and over again against the Eagles? ARod has been getting hit and he's been forced to hurry his throws quite often.

 

[Dan115]

Brees had a lot of time last night also.

 

[PackersDraft]

There is no doubt that Brees has an outstanding offensive line. Brees also has a TON of weapons. I hope the Giants step up their game next week. We need a challenge.

 

[13 Times Champs]

The G men have their backs to the wall. Desperate team. Coach is on the hot seat.

I'm not sure how many in the locker room are in Coughlin's corner. Some of the players are talking about a collapse as has occured the past two seasons.

 

[98Redbird]

I don't understand why a lot of ppl are saying that they hope we don't have to see Brees and the Saints in the playoffs? What ever happened to wanting to/having to beat the best to be the best? Saints are the second best team in the NFC, they are very close to us if not on par or better than us in some areas. I want to play them, bring them on (To our house)! Rodgers vs Brees, McCarthy vs Payton, Capers vs Gregg Williams, sounds like a pretty damn good football game to me... I hope it's Saints/Packers at Lambeau for the NFCC game. Look what we did last year, beat the best the league had to offer up to us. All on the road. NOBODY can discredit what we accomplished. When was the last time a Bears fan could say that?? I mean, really...

 

[Bogart]

Giants are stoppable, the Saints showed it last night, and their defense is worse than ours.

On the other hand, they've really improved their O-line, we're a bit banged up on both sides but the Giants don't scare me. They are an average team at best just like the last 2 years. They wouldn't have a Super Bowl had it not been Assante Samuel dropping that interception on the last drive, that is the only reason they won it, and because Favre gave it to them in the NFC Championship.


I would be worried about the Saints, cause back in Week 1, our defense couldn't stop them, they out gained us on yards by a huge margin and without that turnover that put us up 14-0 and Payton's dumb decision to go for it on 4th and goal, we probably would have really had our hands full that night. Thankfully no Superdome visit in the playoffs or I'd really be worried. Cold weather has always been a factor for the Saints, it totally slows them down, I think Sean Payton has 1 win in the cold, and 4 loses. Why do you think they lost to Seattle last year? Not only were they banged up on defense, and couldn't run the ball, but the cold weather slows them down big time.

 

[Bogart]

From a stand point, the Saints have improved recently where we are not so much improving on offense.

Run game, we're not running over 100 yards anymore, we're struggling for that, our last 3 games we've had under 100 rushing yards, not a good sign.
The Saints ran over 175 on Tampa bay, struggled to get 41 on Atlanta, and they totally ripped the Giants a new one with 205 rushing yards.
I said it earlier this season, the Saints biggest problem was not running the ball, and it looks like they are running it good now using 3 RB's in Thomas, Sproles, and Ingram. We started strong running the ball but right now we're not averaging 100 rushing yards a game anymore.

Offensive line too...We're banged up on the O-Line, and the Saints line has improved over the last few weeks. They gave up 0 sacks against the Giants.

 

[Southpaw]

I think we're more than capable of running the ball successfully. We don't need to though. Rodgers can still put up the numbers and points and Starks never rushes for more than 50 yards.

 

[Dan115]

From a stand point, the Saints have improved recently where we are not so much improving on offense.

Run game, we're not running over 100 yards anymore, we're struggling for that, our last 3 games we've had under 100 rushing yards, not a good sign.
The Saints ran over 175 on Tampa bay, struggled to get 41 on Atlanta, and they totally ripped the Giants a new one with 205 rushing yards.
I said it earlier this season, the Saints biggest problem was not running the ball, and it looks like they are running it good now using 3 RB's in Thomas, Sproles, and Ingram. We started strong running the ball but right now we're not averaging 100 rushing yards a game anymore.

Offensive line too...We're banged up on the O-Line, and the Saints line has improved over the last few weeks. They gave up 0 sacks against the Giants.

I was very impressed with The Saints O line last night.

 

[Bogart]

I think we're more than capable of running the ball successfully. We don't need to though. Rodgers can still put up the numbers and points and Starks never rushes for more than 50 yards.

Running the ball takes the pressure off the quarterback to do everything.


What would the Dallas Cowboys have been without Emmitt Smith or Tony Dorsett? Both teams had great quarterbacks, Staubach could have easily put the ball in the air 40 times a game and still won it, but when you run the ball, it takes the pressure off the quarterback to win the game, balancing the attack, that's why running the ball is so important.

Last year the Saints lost to Seattle in the playoffs, Reggie Bush barely got 50 yards rushing, while Brees had over 400 yards passing.They had over 450 total yards on offense, and 400 were from Brees alone.

When you run the ball, the offense is easier. I don't know what happened to us rushing over 100 a week, now we're barely capable of doing it. Also, when we ran the ball well, Rodgers play action was very impressive (Atlanta game)

 

[ExpatPacker]

I think we're more than capable of running the ball successfully. We don't need to though. Rodgers can still put up the numbers and points and Starks never rushes for more than 50 yards.

Actually I think we do. Lack of a running game has allowed other teams to pressure Rodgers and force him to get rid of the ball quicker. That makes the offense look much more 1-dimensional and predictable. The inability of the Pack to gain any decent yards on the ground in the Lions game led to several 3-and-outs.

 

[Kitten]

Actually that's what concerns me. One of the reasons why ARod hasn't destroyed the last two teams is that he's been under pressure a lot. I mean, watching the Pats-Eagles game and seeing Brady take apart the Eagle defense, I'll tell you what, Brady has TONS more time to throw back there than Rodgers has for the past two weeks. When's the last time Rodgers could just stand there in the pocket practically all day and check off receivers the way that Brady was able to do over and over again against the Eagles? ARod has been getting hit and he's been forced to hurry his throws quite often.

I'm not so concerned with the offense. If I have any lingering concerns, it's the OTs, but I think they will get better. Rodgers is cool and calm under pressure, he doesn't panic and ground the ball the the receiver's feet when hurried. The OTs might not provide the best pocket protection, but as long as Rodgers is able to get that ball in the air, I feel confident one of our receivers will be able to come down with it. We not only have the best QB in the league, but one, if not the best receiving corps as well. Also consider the defenses of both the Saints and Patriots. You listed pressure, how much pressure do you think the Saints and Patriots defenses will be able to provide. They are worse than us. In QB comparisons, can anybody really say that either Brady or Brees is better than Rodgers right now?

I was thinking of comparing the offenses. I didn't every WR on each team, just the big threats. I also included some TEs and RBs. There are probably many more that should get a mention, I just wanted to grasp the magnitude of the Packers offense for comparison.

Receiving corps:

Packers: Jennings, Jordy, Jones, Woodson, Driver, Finely (TE), Cobb, Starks (RB), Grant (RB), Saine (RB, I have a feeling a lot of us will be screaming this guys name before all is said and done)

Patriots: Branch, Welker, (Price and Slater if you will)

Saints: Henderson, I'm not sure of their other receivers so I'll list running threat, Graham (TE), Sproles

 

[Kitten]

Actually I think we do. Lack of a running game has allowed other teams to pressure Rodgers and force him to get rid of the ball quicker. That makes the offense look much more 1-dimensional and predictable. The inability of the Pack to gain any decent yards on the ground in the Lions game led to several 3-and-outs.

Does it matter so much that he has to get rid of the ball quicker as long as he is able to complete the pass? A rapid fire offense may suit us just fine as long as Rodgers is able to stand and deliver under pressure. The only problem is him getting hit, and I cringe every time a defensive linemen gets pass our OTs and guards. But back to the running game, I so far have been very impressed with our run game. The addition of Starks has made a huge difference to our running yards. I have a funny feeling Saine will make a huge difference to our run game as well. The problem with the running game is knowing when to stop it when it's clearly not working. We got no where with the run in the Bears game. That's a coaching issue. Meanwhile, our passing game has not failed us. It is nice to have a run threat, but this is a pass heavy team to begin with.

 

[Raptorman]

That is this years Packers in many ways so far. They lead the league in turnovers and it's not even close. And there offense has the most talent and depth in the league.

The Saints are second to last in the league in turnovers. Colts are last.

Which is funny. Because of all the Packers interceptions, they have only made a difference in three games. The First Vikings game and the Lions game and the Carolina game. Other than those games, the interceptions have not changed the outcome or possible outcome of any games.

 

[Southpaw]

Running the ball takes the pressure off the quarterback to do everything.


What would the Dallas Cowboys have been without Emmitt Smith or Tony Dorsett? Both teams had great quarterbacks, Staubach could have easily put the ball in the air 40 times a game and still won it, but when you run the ball, it takes the pressure off the quarterback to win the game, balancing the attack, that's why running the ball is so important.

Once again, I don't think a 100yd rusher is needed every game. Scratch that, I know it isn't. Because we lead the league in scoring without a stout run game. That's the point of a west coast based offense. We don't need to run to set up the pass or run to take pressure off the QB. Short timed passes sets up the long ball and that takes the pressure off the QB.

But this doesn't mean we are incapable of running the football if we need to.

Last year the Saints lost to Seattle in the playoffs, Reggie Bush barely got 50 yards rushing, while Brees had over 400 yards passing.They had over 450 total yards on offense, and 400 were from Brees alone.

When you run the ball, the offense is easier. I don't know what happened to us rushing over 100 a week, now we're barely capable of doing it. Also, when we ran the ball well, Rodgers play action was very impressive (Atlanta game)

Reggie Bush has never been an in between the tackles back and he had been out a number of weeks last year with an ankle injury or something of the sort. The running game wasn't the reason they lost either. A combination of injuries to the defense, poor tackling, defensive execution and having to play at a place like Qwest Field definitely played a factor.

Rodgers is still having an easy time passing and winning without a 100yd rushing performance, but we ARE capable of getting more production out of Starks.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that a chunk of our rushing yards last season and early this season came from when MM would go into his clock milking mode after we had the lead, the rest were garbage time yards in the 4th quarter.

The pressure on Rodgers this season is not really the result of not running the ball, our offensive line is just beat up right now.

Luckily for us Rodgers gets the ball out fast and he's athletic enough to escape most pressure situations.

 

[Dan115]

Once again, I don't think a 100yd rusher is needed every game. Scratch that, I know it isn't. Because we lead the league in scoring without a stout run game. But that doesn't mean we are incapable of doing it.







Reggie Bush has never been an in between the tackles back and he had been out a number of weeks last year with an ankle injury or something of the sort. The running game wasn't the reason they lost either. A combination of injuries to the defense, poor tackling, defensive execution and having to play at a place like Qwest Field definitely played a factor.

Rodgers is still having an easy time passing and winning without a 100yd rushing performance, but we ARE capable of getting more production out of Starks.

I think a lot of people are forgetting that a chunk of our rushing yards last season and early this season came from when MM would go into his clock milking mode after we had the lead, the rest were garbage time yards in the 4th quarter.

I think a lot depends on our O line. Starks is a tough runner however the line has to keep him a little day light.

 

[Southpaw]

I think it also should be noted that the Saints are a completely different team on the road. Even if they appear to be a more balanced team on offense they just aren't the same team when they aren't playing at home. We'll have the crowd and the weather to our advantage. The Saints crumbled the last time they had to go on the road in cold weather in the playoffs they turned the ball over 5 times.

 

[Bogart]

Once again, I don't think a 100yd rusher is needed every game. Scratch that, I know it isn't. Because we lead the league in scoring without a stout run game. That's the point of a west coast based offense. We don't need to run to set up the pass or run to take pressure off the QB. Short timed passes sets up the long ball and that takes the pressure off the QB.

But this doesn't mean we are incapable of running the football if we need to.




Reggie Bush has never been an in between the tackles back and he had been out a number of weeks last year with an ankle injury or something of the sort. The running game wasn't the reason they lost either. A combination of injuries to the defense, poor tackling, defensive execution and having to play at a place like Qwest Field definitely played a factor.

When you have over 450 yards on total offense and 400 is from your quarterback, how did the running game not effect that loss?

Reggie Bush is overrated. Always will be, always has been.

Defense does share the problem, but offensively, they should have won that game when you mass that many yards, but then again that was all Brees. Their defense still is terrible as it was in that game, but they are running the ball better.

When you can't run the ball, and depend on the quarterback too much it makes you one dimensional.


In a lot of our short loses last season, we were struggling to run the ball. By the time we made the playoffs, the run game really helped us believe it or not.

 

[Bogart]

I think it also should be noted that the Saints are a completely different team on the road. Even if they appear to be a more balanced team on offense they just aren't the same team when they aren't playing at home. We'll have the crowd and the weather to our advantage. The Saints crumbled the last time they had to go on the road in cold weather in the playoffs they turned the ball over 5 times.

Wrong again.

Last time they played in the cold weather on the road in the playoffs they turned it over 1 time, and that was last year.

 

[Dan115]

Seattle game---

 

[Southpaw]

When you have over 450 yards on total offense and 400 is from your quarterback, how did the running game not effect that loss?




Reggie Bush is overrated. Always will be, always has been.

Defense does share the problem, but offensively, they should have won that game when you mass that many yards, but then again that was all Brees. Their defense still is terrible as it was in that game, but they are running the ball better.

When you can't run the ball, and depend on the quarterback too much it makes you one dimensional.


In a lot of our short loses last season, we were struggling to run the ball. By the time we made the playoffs, the run game really helped us believe it or not.

Even if the Saints had a better run attack than they did, do you really think it would have made that much of a difference?

When Brees needed to make plays and put up points he was having success doing it without a running attack.

Defensively they were terrible and that was the main reason for the loss. There were several blown coverages in the red zone and the tackling was **** poor. The game was never really out of their reach until they gave the Lynch TD run.

If I remember correctly as well, they also had signed Julius Jones and played him that game and he coughed up the football on a run play which also likely contributed to the loss as well.

I don't know why you are putting so much stock in our lack of running attack. It has yet to catch-up to us and there is no indication that it will. Call our offense one dimensional but as predictable as our offense may be, opposing teams still can't slow it down.

In a lot of our short losses last season a common denominator may have been our lack of rushing attack, but Rodgers wasn't playing to near the level that he is right now, nor was our defense.

Also in those losses there was no James Starks. Our starting back was Brandon Jackson and he wasn't very good.

Even for arguments sake, lets say the Saints DID lose because they didn't have a run game. We at least have a back that is capable if we need him.

Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it. I'm not worried, if we need Starks or Grant to ram it down their throat, they can do it.

Wrong again.

Last time they played in the cold weather on the road in the playoffs they turned it over 1 time, and that was last year.

I wouldn't call the Seattle game a cold weather game. I'm talking about the loss to Chicago.

 

[Hype]

...if we do face the Saints again....this mite be the 2nd time where GB elects to receive if they win the coin toss

 

[Southpaw]

...if we do face the Saints again....this mite be the 2nd time where GB elects to receive if they win the coin toss

of course. Brees likes to start fast and that means setting the tempo on the opening possession. I don't see us deferring on the toss. But then again I think it depends on how well our defense is playing leading up to that game.