1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Injuries Comparison - 49ers vs. Packers

Discussion in 'Packer Fan Forum' started by BorderRivals.com, Jan 9, 2013.

  1. Vladimirr

    Vladimirr Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    84
    Ratings:
    +107
    I did a breakdown of the numbers a little earlier in the season, before we knew GB vs SF was going to be a thing.

    It's not perfect, but it pretty much agrees with everything set forth in this thread.

    http://www.packerforum.com/posts/476531/
     
  2. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    I stick to my reasoning, anybody unwilling to face even a possibility. I think his team could get along without their precious probowlers, and I think his team would agree with me. It wouldn't be easy, it hasn't been for us, but he seems to think otherwise, obviously if even one dude goes down the season is over because of "how much they mean" to the team. I'll even go so far as to say that if we still had Flynn, I wouldn't be worried if Rodgers went down. I stick to my guns, he's softer than our defense and makeshift OL are alleged to be.
     
  3. Marvin49

    Marvin49 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    171
    Ratings:
    +58
    Wow.

    Really?

    ...and here I thought we were getting along. So I'm a "weak fan"? uh, what does that even mean?

    What I am is simply someone who disagrees with you. Why does that make me weak?

    I think you are still completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. This isn't about "our guys are pro bowlers, your guys aren't, therefore we can't deal with injuries". All I'm saying is that the 49ers depend on that great D much more than the Packers depend on their D because the Packers have the great equalizer in #12 in green.

    I think part of the problem is that you guys have gone SOOOOOOOO long while having a great QB (Favre followed by Rodgers) that you don't remember what it was like BEFORE they were Packers. I watched Montana followed by Young followed by....other guys. LOL.

    The 49er haven't had the great QB to lean on (although hopefully that's about to change).

    Tell me this....how good would the Packers be if Rodgers wasn't on the team? If he got hurt.

    Now imagine playing ALL of your games without Rodgers. Other positions have to pick up the slack. You have to win games in different ways. In the Niners case for 2 years that has meant allowing very, very few points and eeking out small victories. That has begun to change some this year.

    Why is it so wrong to suggest that when the defense is your best unit and the unit that wins you games that its players are more important than to a team that ALSO has great offense to offset the D's deficiencies?

    I watched the Niners all through the 80's and 90's so I've been on the other side of this argument. If the Bears lost Mike Singletary it would have been much different than the Niners losing Keena Turner. The Bears didn't have that offense...they won on DEFENSE.

    Finally...what do you mean I couldn't even face the possibility of playing without our precious pro bowlers? What does that even have to do with this? The original post was just about trying to equate a 1 to 1 comparison of who the Niners would lose if they had lost players at the same positions as the Packers had. I'm sorry if I don't think losing Willis and Gore is exactly the same as losing Benson and Bishop. Lets pretend for a sec that Alex Smith isn't on the team. Would the 49ers losing Kaepernick be the same as the Packers losing Rodgers? HELL NO. Why? The 49er rely on the run game and defense to win which makes Kaep LESS IMPORTANT than Rodgers to his team.

    Why does this make me weak as a fan? Logic?
     
  4. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    I said it before, If we still had Flynn, I'd be fine with Rodgers going down. You on the other hand don't seem to think your boys have the slightest chance without all of your probowlers, I shudder to think how you'd tremble if any of them couldn't play for even one game. It's not that you won't give Willis, it's that you won't give anybody. You seem to have no confidence in your backups. Give me a guy you think is equivalent to Bishop in value, offense or defense, somebody, anybody, I don't care, and we'll see.

    Your lack of confidence in your bench is what leads me to call you weak, or rather "soft."
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,526
    Ratings:
    +875
    If we had Flynn, and Rodgers went on IR at the beginning of the season... I would NOT be fine with this. We wouldn't have made it to the post-season.
     
  6. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    If all of our other players were healthy, I think we might have still made it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Marvin49

    Marvin49 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    171
    Ratings:
    +58
    Who said I had no confidense in the backups? Larry Grant and Tavares Gooden are pretty damn good. The 49ers DID play without Willis for 4 games last year (Grant took his spot). All I said was that the 49ers (who depend on defense more than the Packers) depend on more from the LB position than the Packers do. That doesn't mean they can't win. I'm just saying that losing the starting LB on the 49ers is different than losing the starting LB in GB simply because the 49ers have to rely on that defense more than the Packers do.

    Is that too complicated?

    Equivalent Value? Thats tought to say when we are talking about different positions...but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say Vernon Davis. Two-Time Pro Bowl player, He plays OFFENSE however, and on THESE 49ers the most important guys on the field play DEFENSE. Losing Davis would hurt...no doubt, but not nearly as much as losing Willis.

    Its not that I wouldn't give ANYONE up or compare Bishop to anyone. 1) I just don't think defense on the whole is as important to the Packers winning formula as it is to SF, and 2) You have just picked 2 players that many in the league would tell you are the best players at their positions in the entire NFL (and as such, are a reason that D is as good as it is).

    Your posts are getting funny tho...its like we are about to go out back and get in a fight but I'm just too soft to do it. LOL. This ain't a rumble. This is just peeps on the internet disgussing which loss means more to their team. The Packers have lost WAY more players to injury. WAY more. I'm not even arguing that. I'm just saying you can't say that losing Bishop means exactly the same thing to the Packers as the Niners losing Willis.

    ROTFLMAO! "Soft".

    BTW, the Niners will be there if they have to play backups at every position and I'll be in the stands cheering them on regardless.

    PS: I call big fat BS on the Flynn talk. So Right now, if I were to say that losing Kaepernick and Rodgers is essentially the same thing, you would agree with that statement? If so, we can end this conversation right now because we are clearly speaking different languages.
     
  8. Marvin49

    Marvin49 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    171
    Ratings:
    +58
    That isn't the question. The discussion isn't "would we have made it without those guys". The questions is if the 49ers had lost players at the exact same positions the Packers did would the Niners have a shot.

    I think the Niners would have been hurt far more than the Packers were because the Niners don't have #12 and they depend on those players to win the games more than the Packers do.

    Its really quite simple. I dunno why it's hard to understand.
     
  9. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Davis sounds about right to me, I can accept that.

    If Alex Smith wasn't your backup or we still had Flynn, I'd say that losing Kaep and losing AR are at least comparable. I guess that means I'm either higher on Kaep, or lower on AR than you, perhaps a bit of both. Voimme lopettaa tämän keskustelun nyt, koska olemme selkeästi puhuvat eri kieliä.

    I've been saying all along comprable player eqivalency.

    What's not hard to understand is that you're saying our players are all scrubs and that it doesn't matter who goes down because one scrub will replace another. Yet because of one guy, a team of scrubs can maybe make it to the superbowl.
     
  10. PFanCan

    PFanCan That's MISTER Cheesehead, to you.

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    1,526
    Ratings:
    +875
    I'd respond to that, but I can't find the key on my keyboard with the double dots on top.

    :D
     
  11. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    You've got to reconfigure the keyboard to do it. It's annoying
     
  12. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    Just for discussion, the Packers went into this season with an agenda to improve their defense. That was mostly deficient last year. So we drafted Perry to help on the rush from the side opposite Matthews. We lost him early on this season to injury. Moses and Walden are now filling in at that position. Bishop was one of our inside LB's at the start of the season. We lost him, then lost his replacement D J Smith. We are now playing a third guy at inside LB, Brad Jones.

    You can say that the Packers losing a defensive player is not as important as you want to but the Packers were last in 2011 in defense. Defense not offense was our achilles heal last year and still may be(injuries on OL have hurt also). Bottom line we are better this year on defense, not great, largely because of an improved secondary but we miss Bishop, DJ Smith and Perry a lot at the LB position.
     
  13. CandlestickBum

    CandlestickBum Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    28
    Ratings:
    +23
    Everyone in the NFL is pretty good, but Green Bay only has a single player on its defense who made the pro bowl this year.

    The difference between most of the players that start on the 49ers defense and their backups is much more significant than the difference between most of the starters and backups on Green Bay. And, this is amplified by the fact that the 49ers game strategy primarily involves keeping the score low, whereas the Green Bay game strategy involves primarily running the score up.

    If Kaepernick goes down, Smith is there to replace him, and probably better than him right now anyway. If Rodgers goes down, I really do not see Green Bay going anywhere in the playoffs, because Rodgers is that much better than the guy behind him and because Green Bay needs a great passing game to win.
     
  14. 13 Times Champs

    13 Times Champs Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2011
    Messages:
    3,924
    Ratings:
    +1,379
    [​IMG]
     
  15. CandlestickBum

    CandlestickBum Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    28
    Ratings:
    +23
    If our backups were so good compared to the starters, then our defensive starters would not be on the field for the entire 4 quarters.

    The fact is, our backups are. . . backups. They might be able to start on a lot of teams, but our starters are so good that they play better after three quarters than most NFL defensive players play on the first snap.
     
  16. CandlestickBum

    CandlestickBum Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2013
    Messages:
    28
    Ratings:
    +23
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Marvin49

    Marvin49 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    171
    Ratings:
    +58
    Yet you still went 15-1 with that D because your offense was THAT good.

    Thats my point.

    The Niner O was the achilles heal to the 49ers because the D was the reason they were winning.

    Yes...you want to strengthen a weakness, but losing a big part of the strength is crushing.
     
  18. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Once again, So 12 is the only guy on this team that matters, and everybody else is a scrub and easily replaced. Doesn't matter who we put on the field, so long as 12 is there we're good, might as well grab some fans out of the stands. If our scrubs somehow manage to scrub your probowlers out of the bracket, the depths of my smugness shall not be known. X probowlers beaten by a single probowler (Matthews obviously doesn't count because he's on defense and defense apparently doesn't matter to us) Priceless
     
  19. Marvin49

    Marvin49 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    171
    Ratings:
    +58
    Who said all your guys were scrubs!?!

    I didn't say that.

    Do I think they are the 49ers tho? No. The Niners may have the best LB corps since the Saints Dome Patrol in the 80's. Patrick Willis, Navorrow Bowman, Aldon Smith, and Ahmad Brooks. # of those guys are starting in the Pro Bowl and the last is an alternate.

    Saying the Niners LBs are better doesn't mean you're guys are scrubs. What I';m saying is that the Niners are SO good that they are a much larger piece of the Niners winning formula. Without that LB corps, the Niners aren't even in a position to PLAY this game because they probably wouldn't have won the division.

    Do you think the Packers would be in the playoffs if Rodgers wasn't your QB? I'm not trying to insult the Packers...but dude...think about it. How good is that offense behind that line without #12?

    I think you have kinda fallen into the trap that I fell into during the Montana/Young years. You really don't appreciate how good a QB is and the effect he has on the rest of the team until you DON'T have one of those guys.
     
  20. Marvin49

    Marvin49 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    171
    Ratings:
    +58
    Again...nobody is saying they are scrubs.

    Are you saying that the talent level on the Packers D is exactly the same as the Niners?

    If so (and you're right), the Niners are in deep doo-doo.
     
  21. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    We dealt with offensive injuries! We lost two starting Tackles and a starting RB! Jennings was gone most of the year, Nelson went down for a while, Cobb went down for a game, a starting Guard went down for a game, another starting RB went down for almost 8 games, and the THIRD starter at RB went down for a few weeks because he reaggravated the knee he just had surgically repaired. That's right, we're on our 4th set of legs at RB, we just promoted a backup to starting Center, we have a backup at each tackle one of them being an undrafted rookie!
     
  22. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    It seems that the Packers O is only on par with the 9ers D because of our QB. Nevermind all the other guys on the field.

    I understand completely that AR is a great QB, he's obviously the best in the game, and the numbers support that, even more so when you consider ALL THE INJURIES. The man barely has a line, has had no semblance of a run game until recently. Yes we have one of the greatest QB of all time, but that fact doesn't belittle all our other players.
     
  23. Marvin49

    Marvin49 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    171
    Ratings:
    +58
    What's your point? I don't even know what point you are arguing anymore.

    You still have #12. Are you saying you still would have had the same prolific O without him?

    I mean...lol...it sounds like the only thing that would make you happy is if I said, "yup..the Packers are better at every position on the field and the only reason this is even close is that we lost some players to injury. None of the players on your team are better".

    LOL.
     
  24. Marvin49

    Marvin49 Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2012
    Messages:
    171
    Ratings:
    +58
    Well....

    That and some of the WRs.

    Are you honestly saying they would be on that level WITHOUT Rodgers? The WRs in GB are some of the best in the NFL in terms of the entire WR Corps, but RB? O-Line? Are all those guys "elite"?
     
  25. HyponGrey

    HyponGrey Caseus Locutus Est

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Messages:
    3,758
    Ratings:
    +1,030
    Bulaga was one of the best RT in the game, so yes. As for Benson, you obviously don't seem to think so.

    We played a WR down almost all of our games.

    Just because our players don't fit your "Elite" bill doesn't mean it doesn't hurt to lose them or that they aren't important or even damn fine players, and if they manage to beat your "elite" boys that will only further prove it.
     

Share This Page