lets be optimistic for a change....

[PackerDNA]

lol....but just 8 days ago the general comments from most fans and talking heads was that the Packer's defense was on the rise and they were one of the deepest in the league with their secondary. One loss and the sky is falling.

The Packers would be in trouble without Rodgers. Agreed. Just like Denver would without Manning and the Colts without Luck. The Packers have holes and some weak positional talent-agreed. The Packers do however have enough talent to beat anyone on any given day. Lacey...Cobb...Nelson...these guys are no joke.

Not saying the sky is falling; just that although there is talent, this is not the next Super Bowl winner. It's still the same problems; can't stop the run, Hawk, the Oline, where are the TE's, McCarthy's playcalling, etc.
And Denver has a defense to somewhat offset the loss of Manning, although that would probably be the end of their title hopes.

 

[Carl]

Not saying the sky is falling; just that although there is talent, this is not the next Super Bowl winner. It's still the same problems; can't stop the run, Hawk, the Oline, where are the TE's, McCarthy's playcalling, etc.
And Denver has a defense to somewhat offset the loss of Manning, although that would probably be the end of their title hopes.

Every recent Super Bowl winner has looked good all of the regular season?

Giants started both seasons off poorly, Ravens finished the season 1-4, including a beat down by the team they beat in the playoffs, 2010 Packers lost two OT games to bad teams.

I see no evidence to say this team couldn't put it together and do the same. And they did look like a Super Bowl team the 4 weeks prior to New Orleans.

 

[PackerDNA]

If you all want to interpret my posts and speak for me, then there's not much point in me wasting time posting.

 

[GoPGo]

We've been blown out by 2 good teams (that have shown they are beatable), and won a game where we gave up 500 yards, 33 first downs, and allowed Chicago to control the ball for 36 minutes (thankyou Jay Cutler).

Are you kidding me? You're *****ing about time of possession in a game where we scored 38 points? Seriously?! Is it the Packers' fault the Bears allowed them to score on almost every possession while averaging less than 6 plays per drive?

This is proof positive that some people will look for ANYTHING to gripe about.

We... won a game where we gave up 500 yards, 33 first downs...

... and most importantly, only 17 points.

 

[JBlood]

Are you kidding me? You're *****ing about time of possession

1. I'm not kidding
2. I'm not *****ing, just pointing out that when you're beaten twice as much on the clock, it's usually because you're being beaten on the line of scrimmage, and your defense can't get off the field. Exceptions occur, like the Bears game. How many wins would a team have if its TOP averaged 23 minutes for an entire season?
3. I'll take the win. I don't like the play.

 

[GoPGo]

1. I'm not kidding
2. I'm not *****ing, just pointing out that when you're beaten twice as much on the clock, it's usually because you're being beaten on the line of scrimmage, and your defense can't get off the field. Exceptions occur, like the Bears game. How many wins would a team have if its TOP averaged 23 minutes for an entire season?
3. I'll take the win. I don't like the play.

Is there anything you DO like about anything? I mean, it's seriously hard to tell because you almost never have much of anything positive to say about the Packers.

 

[Carl]

1. I'm not kidding
2. I'm not *****ing, just pointing out that when you're beaten twice as much on the clock, it's usually because you're being beaten on the line of scrimmage, and your defense can't get off the field. Exceptions occur, like the Bears game. How many wins would a team have if its TOP averaged 23 minutes for an entire season?
3. I'll take the win. I don't like the play.

I always like the play when it leads to a 21 point win.

 

[Sanguine camper]

Improved play by the safeties is good news. Adams progress looks great. He looks like the real deal. Linsey is going to be the center of the future. Some reason for optimism but until the Packers fix their ILB problem, the option will have to be tempered

 

[realcaliforniacheese]

I'm optimistic my Hemorrhoids won't flare up tomorrow.

 

[JBlood]

Is there anything you DO like about anything? I mean, it's seriously hard to tell because you almost never have much of anything positive to say about the Packers.

I like a lot of things. Bad football is not one of them. Criticizing that doesn't mean I don't like the Packers.

 

[PikeBadger]

Bye week was a victory. Gives players more time to heal. Had a chance to watch a few games yesterday and saw guys limping off, carted off and half carried off in each game. I believe our overall team depth is better than almost every other team in the league. I think 6-2 or even 7-1 from here on out are distinct possibilities. We're in decent position to make a good run at the big prize assuming that the young inexperienced players like Adams, R. Rodgers, Janis, Dix, Robinson, barrington, Bostick, Hyde, D. Jones, Linsely, Bahktiari continue to improve. We've got healthy and established playmakers to lead the way. This could be a fun ride.

 

[NOMOFO]

I like a lot of things. Bad football is not one of them. Criticizing that doesn't mean I don't like the Packers.

I saw a ton of bad football this season from teams that many of us Packer fans are suggesting are teams we need to be more like. All I'm saying is, anyone that thinks the Packers don't have as good of a shot as any team in the NFL, is just ignoring facts. There are a handful of teams in the NFC that all have a great shot at being in the SB and the Pack is one of them.

 

[brandon2348]

A middle-of-the-field enforcer is what the doctor ordered. There's a strong bias in the league against 5'11" LBs so he should be available.

Some draft experts have him as a top 20 player on the entire board but yes because of height he probably will drop. Baltimore and Pittsburgh usually get guys that can play the middle like this. He isn't like a guy like Chris Borland in the sense he runs 4.5 forty compared to Borland's 4.8 so I consider Perryman to be "lightning in a bottle".

 

[GoPGo]

I like a lot of things. Bad football is not one of them. Criticizing that doesn't mean I don't like the Packers.

Bad football? EVERY NFL TEAM has problems. The trick is in how well you hide those problems. If what you expect is a punishing running game, high-flying passing game, a defense capable of shutting down everything and dominating special teams, you're just flat-out dreaming. That team doesn't exist, and it never will. This is the NFL... a league where a 0-10 team is perfectly capable of beating a 10-0 team on the road with a little luck. But yet, the Packers get beat on the road against a team who happens to be pretty good at their own place, and suddenly they're a bad football team? Whatever, man.

 

[Deleted member 6794]

Some draft experts have him as a top 20 player on the entire board but yes because of height he probably will drop. Baltimore and Pittsburgh usually get guys that can play the middle like this. He isn't like a guy like Chris Borland in the sense he runs 4.5 forty compared to Borland's 4.8 so I consider Perryman to be "lightning in a bottle".

I guess Benardrick McKinney would present the best chance for the Packers to get an impact player at ILB if he decides to enter next year´s draft.

 

[brandon2348]

I guess Benardrick McKinney would present the best chance for the Packers to get an impact player at ILB if he decides to enter next year´s draft.

I am mixed on Benardrick McKinney. Physically and athletic wise he may look like the obvious choice but he might be another tweener as to where he fits in at the next level. Instinctively he lacks what Perryman brings to the table IMO. The last thing we need is another experimental project. This is like last year where if I remember correctly you wanted a safety that could play "single high". Well in this situation I want to see them get a linebacker that can play "inside" on all three downs. Perryman to me is the obvious choice in regards to getting it done "in the middle".

Don't get me wrong I like McKinney's upside but I see Perryman as the more "for sure thing" inside. He is immediate plug and play and Hawk goes bye bye.

Perryman= Faster then C.J Mosley and get's off blocks better then Shazier and hits harder then both of them.

 

[GoPGo]

1. I'm not kidding
2. I'm not *****ing, just pointing out that when you're beaten twice as much on the clock, it's usually because you're being beaten on the line of scrimmage, and your defense can't get off the field. Exceptions occur, like the Bears game. How many wins would a team have if its TOP averaged 23 minutes for an entire season?
3. I'll take the win. I don't like the play.

You're so right. We have a SERIOUS problem. The Bears killed us in TOP in the first half of the game yet again tonight. This is unacceptable!

 

[JBlood]

You're so right

Thank you, sir. Last night, TOP for the game was equal. Now, answer the question: How many wins would a team have if its TOP averaged 23 minutes for an entire season?

To quote a sage: "Whatever".

 

[GoPGo]

Thank you, sir. Last night, TOP for the game was equal.

The Bears owned TOP by more than 5 minutes in the first half and the score was 42-0 at halftime. It further proves that TOP in and of itself means nothing.

Now, answer the question: How many wins would a team have if its TOP averaged 23 minutes for an entire season?

I don't know. Why don't you tell me and give some reasoning behind it? You're the one making the assertion that TOP is so critical for a top tier passing team. Besides, I don't know of a team averaging anywhere near that low of a total for the season, do you? You're presenting a hypothetical that has absolutely no basis in reality.

 

[NOMOFO]

The Bears owned TOP by more than 5 minutes in the first half and the score was 42-0 at halftime. It further proves that TOP in and of itself means nothing.



I don't know. Why don't you tell me and give some reasoning behind it? You're the one making the assertion that TOP is so critical for a top tier passing team. Besides, I don't know of a team averaging anywhere near that low of a total for the season, do you? You're presenting a hypothetical that has absolutely no basis in reality.

Fact is, the Bears wanted nothing more than to run the clock! lol ...seriously...they wanted nothing more than to keep that clock moving. They were huddling up and running clock already in the 3rd quarter. They wanted out of dodge big-time. Sooooo...ya... kudos to the Bears for their impressive TOP.

 

[JBlood]

The Bears owned TOP by more than 5 minutes in the first half and the score was 42-0 at halftime. It further proves that TOP in and of itself means nothing.
I don't know. Why don't you tell me and give some reasoning behind it? You're the one making the assertion that TOP is so critical for a top tier passing team. Besides, I don't know of a team averaging anywhere near that low of a total for the season, do you? You're presenting a hypothetical that has absolutely no basis in reality.

If you would bother to read the post you would see that I stated that we won a game allowing 30 first downs and 500 yards of offense and allowing that team to control the ball for 37 minutes. You're arguing that none of that is important, since we won the game. Therefore, someone who thinks winning football involves controlling the line of scrimmage might ask how many games a team would win allowing such numbers over the course of a season.

The Colts in 1981 gave up 406 first downs, an average of just over 25/game. They were 2 and 14. It's not unreasonable to assume they would have been worse giving up 30/ game.

The Saints in 2012 gave up 7042 yards, an average of 440/game. They were 7 and 9. It's not unreasonable to assume they would have been worse if they had given up 500/game.

The Raiders are averaging about 26 min/game in TOP. They are 0 and 8. I guess they couldn't be any worse if they averaged 23 minutes.

So there certainly is some "basis in reality" about those stats. And since you ask, I say that a hypothetical team allowing those hypothetical stats over the course of a hypothetical season would win about 1 hypothetical game. I would further say that the odds of a team having a winning record with those numbers would be about as high as the odds of winning the lottery. Even a passing team. If you don't agree that's fine with me.

 

[GoPGo]

And what, exactly, does all your hypothetical drivel have to do with the Packers?

 

[Deleted member 6794]

If you would bother to read the post you would see that I stated that we won a game allowing 30 first downs and 500 yards of offense and allowing that team to control the ball for 37 minutes. You're arguing that none of that is important, since we won the game. Therefore, someone who thinks winning football involves controlling the line of scrimmage might ask how many games a team would win allowing such numbers over the course of a season.

The Colts in 1981 gave up 406 first downs, an average of just over 25/game. They were 2 and 14. It's not unreasonable to assume they would have been worse giving up 30/ game.

The Saints in 2012 gave up 7042 yards, an average of 440/game. They were 7 and 9. It's not unreasonable to assume they would have been worse if they had given up 500/game.

The Raiders are averaging about 26 min/game in TOP. They are 0 and 8. I guess they couldn't be any worse if they averaged 23 minutes.

So there certainly is some "basis in reality" about those stats. And since you ask, I say that a hypothetical team allowing those hypothetical stats over the course of a hypothetical season would win about 1 hypothetical game. I would further say that the odds of a team having a winning record with those numbers would be about as high as the odds of winning the lottery. Even a passing team. If you don't agree that's fine with me.

While I agree time of possession isn´t an important stat teams that win the TOP battle are 99-47-1 (.677) this season. There are teams though it doesn´t matter much with like the Packers who controlled the ball for more than 30 minutes only once this season against Miami.

 

[JBlood]

And what, exactly, does all your hypothetical drivel have to do with the Packers?

Funny. I'd explain it to you, but it would take days. Over and out.

 

[NOMOFO]

Last Nights Eagles Win

Eagles 38 Panthers 21

TOP belonged to the Panthers by over 17 minutes.