OFFICIAL Packers VS Lions - The Matt Flynn Game

[Croak]

Also, unrelated, but since we figure to be rivals for a while (you have no idea how elated that makes us to type that, and no I don't want to hear you smug response to it) is there anyway to remove the "Packers fan since ..." in my tag? I did a quick search but found nothing. I may have missed it. If there is no option, you may want to consider it, as you probably plan on being the class of the NFL for a while and will likely draw many opposing fans who don't want that. Likewise, I invite you all to our forums at motownsports.com (for all you brewers fans, many of us consider the brewers our favorite NL team...). Please don't delete this as advertising a site, I couldn't care less if you join or not, I just figured since many of us will probably join here, you'd probably want to see what we talk about too.

This is our sneaky way of subliminal mind conversion...look deep into our eyes....you WILL convert to Green and Yellow....

 

[longtimefan]

Also, unrelated, but since we figure to be rivals for a while (you have no idea how elated that makes us to type that, and no I don't want to hear you smug response to it) is there anyway to remove the "Packers fan since ..." in my tag? I did a quick search but found nothing. I may have missed it. If there is no option, you may want to consider it, as you probably plan on being the class of the NFL for a while and will likely draw many opposing fans who don't want that. Likewise, I invite you all to our forums at motownsports.com (for all you brewers fans, many of us consider the brewers our favorite NL team...). Please don't delete this as advertising a site, I couldn't care less if you join or not, I just figured since many of us will probably join here, you'd probably want to see what we talk about too.

You had a date of 1920...I left it blank, so should be okay now

 

[FrankRizzo]

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but the Lions are a 3-point FAVORITE over us in this game.

This game is huge for the Lions. Assuming the Niners beat the 2-13 Rams, the Lions need to win because if they lose, they will then have to go to New Orleans for their Wildcard game. That's the same team who killed them by about 30 points a few weeks ago... their fans believe they will win at either NYG or Dallas.... I hope they come to Dallas SO BADLY!

 

[Forget Favre]

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but the Lions are a 3-point FAVORITE over us in this game.

This game is huge for the Lions. Assuming the Niners beat the 2-13 Rams, the Lions need to win because if they lose, they will then have to go to New Orleans for their Wildcard game. That's the same team who killed them by about 30 points a few weeks ago... their fans believe they will win at either NYG or Dallas.... I hope they come to Dallas SO BADLY!

Are you hoping for a Packers vs Lions playoff game?

 

[Scotland Yard]

If the Lions suffer an injury in the first half, what will happen to that team's psyche?

My guess is Schwarts will suddenly start thinking about resting his own team for his first ever playoff game which might be only six days later. He might want to keep the perpetually injured Stafford out of harm's way, perhaps?

Also, this has happened many times in the past, when a team only has seeding at stake (no chance at a bye week), the players just don't bring it for the regular season finale. They coast. In the Lions case, they're already looking ahead to their first taste of sweet playoff-football nectar. Regardless of the game with the Packers, they will be on the big stage next week.

It's like having a date lined up for next Saturday night with a smoking hot babe, but, in the meantime your taking out a plain-jane girl tonight. Believe me, you're saving your A-game for Saturday night, you're not really too worried about how things go with plain-jane girl. (No offense intended to any plain-jane girls of course.)

Of course they want to win, but, don't be suprised if the Lions suddenly become complacent in the third quarter and the Packers' backups make it a ballgame, maybe even a Packers' victory.

 

[Barrysghost]

"perpetually injured"?

Perpetually : To last an infinite amount of time, a position held for a period of time as to be considered permanent.

I know it sounded good, and big words make you feel smart, but you really should be able to define a word if you're going to use it. "Perpetually injured" is no where near accurate.

Stafford has played only 3 seasons. Yes, he injured his throwing shoulder in the first 2 seasons and missed a lot of games. He then followed that by strengthening and conditioning his shoulders in the off season. He has yet to injure it again, and he has taken some pretty hard hits this year. He did fracture his index finger this season (on his throwing hand), but to his credit, played despite the hurt hand and NEVER used it as an excuse. He has not been permanantly injured, nor is he injured in every game, or any other way that the word 'perpetual' would be proper to use. Manning has been 'perpetually injured' this season. ^-- THAT is an accurate statement.

As for the rest of your post, the Lions have had injuries all season, same as any team, and it hasn't done a thing to anyones 'psyche'. So, good non-point there. Schwartz has already stated that the Lions are playing this game on Sunday to win, period. No resting starters is happening on our side of the ball, no matter how 'plain Jane' the Packers are.

I can't wait for this game Sunday, the Packers (and a few of their fans) need lowered a peg or two.

 

[dbain21]

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but the Lions are a 3-point FAVORITE over us in this game.

This game is huge for the Lions. Assuming the Niners beat the 2-13 Rams, the Lions need to win because if they lose, they will then have to go to New Orleans for their Wildcard game. That's the same team who killed them by about 30 points a few weeks ago... their fans believe they will win at either NYG or Dallas.... I hope they come to Dallas SO BADLY!

The score was 24-17 going into the fourth quarter in that Det@NO game. And why do you want the lions to go to dallas- I see them winning that game.

 

[Barrysghost]

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but the Lions are a 3-point FAVORITE over us in this game.

This game is huge for the Lions. Assuming the Niners beat the 2-13 Rams, the Lions need to win because if they lose, they will then have to go to New Orleans for their Wildcard game. That's the same team who killed them by about 30 points a few weeks ago... their fans believe they will win at either NYG or Dallas.... I hope they come to Dallas SO BADLY!

the score in the NO v Det game was 31-17. So they did score 'about 30 points', but they did NOT beat us by that much. 2 TD's is still a loss, for sure. Now then, who got 'killed' by the Lions? The Chiefs, 48-3. See you Cheese-heads Sunday.

 

[neilfii]

"perpetually injured"?

Perpetually : To last an infinite amount of time, a position held for a period of time as to be considered permanent.

I know it sounded good, and big words make you feel smart, but you really should be able to define a word if you're going to use it. "Perpetually injured" is no where near accurate.

Stafford has played only 3 seasons. Yes, he injured his throwing shoulder in the first 2 seasons and missed a lot of games. He then followed that by strengthening and conditioning his shoulders in the off season. He has yet to injure it again, and he has taken some pretty hard hits this year. He did fracture his index finger this season (on his throwing hand), but to his credit, played despite the hurt hand and NEVER used it as an excuse. He has not been permanantly injured, nor is he injured in every game, or any other way that the word 'perpetual' would be proper to use. Manning has been 'perpetually injured' this season. ^-- THAT is an accurate statement.

So Stafford has played three seasons and he has experienced "significant" injuries (yes a broken finger would be a fairly significant, though not debilitating or sidelining, injury) in each of those three seasons.
Regardless, in case you had not noticed it, you are on a Packer forum and not only can we define "perpetually," but we can define (and use) hyperbole.
Also, I know we are not supposed to correct spelling and grammar, but since you have chosen to do so, I should let you know that it is "nowhere" not "no where."

 

[Barrysghost]

Sorry about the additional tap of a space bar. I can see how that would be annoying, and how people might not understand "no where" the same as "nowhere". Thank you for the correction. Using a phrase like "perpetually injured" when you mean "prone to significant injury" is not hyperbole (which is defined as an exaggeration used for effect). The two phrases mean entirely different things, one is not an extreme of the other. "Prone to" suggests that the guy COULD get injured due to past injury, while "perpetually" suggests that the guy is currently injured and likely always will be. If you can define hyperbole, try using it correctly. You see, I wasn't correcting 'gammar' so much as an entirely inaccurate statement.

Been a member since Jan 24, 2011? from Indiana?
coughcoughCOUGHfairweatherfan!COUGHcough....

The comment about Manning must've struck a nerve.

 

[13 Times Champs]

Been a member since Jan 24, 2011? from Indiana?
coughcoughCOUGHfairweatherfan!COUGHcough....

The comment about Manning must've struck a nerve.

So join date of this forum designates how long you've been a Packer fan! OMG that's funny. If you had bothered to read his profile you would see he has been a Packer fan since 1965.

 

[Barrysghost]

Only a Packer fan believes everything they read. You see, this is the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T, where people of all kinds type all kinds of things, much of which is untrue. Now, join date? You can't lie about that.

 

[neilfii]

Sorry about the additional tap of a space bar. I can see how that would be annoying, and how people might not understand "no where" the same as "nowhere". Thank you for the correction. Using a phrase like "perpetually injured" when you mean "prone to significant injury" is not hyperbole (which is defined as an exaggeration used for effect). The two phrases mean entirely different things, one is not an extreme of the other. "Prone to" suggests that the guy COULD get injured due to past injury, while "perpetually" suggests that the guy is currently injured and likely always will be. If you can define hyperbole, try using it correctly.

Been a member since Jan 24, 2011? from Indiana?
coughcoughCOUGHfairweatherfan!COUGHcough....

The comment about Manning must've struck a nerve.

Born and raised in Wisconsin. Check the "Fan since" line in the avatar. I've been attending Packer games since 1966. My parents started taking my brother and myself when we were kids. Most of the Lambeau games I attended were in the mid to late 80's because I am a die-hard Packer fan, so don't make assumptions about people (you know what they say about "assume").
As far as hyperbole; perhaps you should read the definition. Simply stated, it means exaggeration. You are right "prone to significant injury" and "perpetually injured" are entirely different. To say that Stafford is "prone to significant injury" is a fact, not hyperbole. As you readily admit; he has played three seasons and he has experienced a significant injury in each. He is not just "prone" which means susceptible (sorry for making you look that up too), he has actually experienced them. Has he been "perpetually," which you define as permanently, injured? No. To say "perpetually" injured would be an exaggeration. Oh wait, exaggeration is the definition of hyperbole.

 

[Barrysghost]

So, by your clarification, if I had a broken arm last year, it would be accurate to say my arm is "perpetually" broken? Or is it more accurate to say my arm is "susceptible" (I'm a walking dictionary, I don't need to look anything up, thanks) to breaking in the future? Because someone has been injured in the past , it is acceptable hyperbole to say they are always injured? That doesn't make sense. Hey, my dog pooped yesterday, so he must be "perpetually" pooping. Because something has happened once or twice, the exaggeration of "always" is just not accurate, even for hyperbole. You say that "perpetually" is an exaggeration, but even exaggerations need a basis in fact. Otherwise, it is just a wacky statement that is untrue. By your definition, anyone who has been injured in the past 3 years can be classified as "perpetually" injured.

BTW, to say that Stafford is "prone to significant injury" isn't a fact, its an opinion. "Stafford has been significantly injured in past seasons" is a fact.

I don't care about how big a fan you say you are. Just so we're clear.

 

[FrankRizzo]

Are you hoping for a Packers vs Lions playoff game?

No, I want Dallas to beat NYG because then next year's schedule will have the Packers playing down here where I live at Dallas. A game I will then go to.

As for wanting to play the Lions in the playoff game goes: I don't want to face them a third time. The team I'd least like to face is NYG, but Detroit is next, followed by Atlanta and Dallas.

Our first playoff game will be a test.
Too often lately, teams with byes come out and lose to a team who just won.

 

[Poppa San]

Glad to see the trolls have returned. Needed something new to laugh at. Being consistently better than the opposition kind of scared them away.

 

[13 Times Champs]

Glad to see the trolls have returned. Needed something new to laugh at. Being consistently better than the opposition kind of scared them away.

The current troll knows we aren't going to play our starters so he is all full of himself.

 

[neilfii]

It's good to know that you are a "walking dictionary." Perhaps this would be beneficial if you could read. I guess I get bored reading "the dictionary" so I'm not going to keep this up too much longer.
No if you broke your arm last year in would not be accurate to say perpetually and that is what I said in my post. If, however, you broke it each of the last three years and you were only three years old (Stafford has had a significant injury in 100% of his starting seasons) it would be hyperbole (an exaggeration) to say that your arm is perpetually broken.
Is it "more accurate" to say you are susceptible to breaking it in the future? I guess that depends upon whether you continue to engage in the type of activity that has caused it to break (although medically speaking it is actually less likely that you would break it in the same place). If you persist in that activity, then yes, it would be "more accurate" to say that you are susceptible to breaking your arm.
In the literal sense, no, your dog will not poop perpetually because in its most accepted use perpetual means forever, and your dog will not live that long. Perpetual does, however, also mean periodic as in flowers that are called "perpetuals" meaning they continuously blossom during season, and in that sense I trust that your dog does "perpetually" poop (meaning I trust he periodically poops until the day of his death) because if he doesn't he will die prematurely from his failure to poop.
As to your statement that "the exaggeration of "always" is just not accurate, even for hyperbole" if you understand at all the premise of hyperbole it is by definition "not accurate."
As to the requirement that there be a "basis in fact" for hyperbole I simply rely upon Stafford being injured in 100% of the seasons in which he has been a starter.
Finally, you say, "By your definition, anyone who has been injured in the past 3 years can be classified as "perpetually" injured." No, by my definition that would be hyperbole or exaggeration if you prefer.
Now, if it is all the same to you, I tire of this.

 

[Scotland Yard]

"perpetually injured"?

Perpetually : To last an infinite amount of time, a position held for a period of time as to be considered permanent.

I know it sounded good, and big words make you feel smart, but you really should be able to define a word if you're going to use it. "Perpetually injured" is no where near accurate.

Stafford has played only 3 seasons. Yes, he injured his throwing shoulder in the first 2 seasons and missed a lot of games. He then followed that by strengthening and conditioning his shoulders in the off season. He has yet to injure it again, and he has taken some pretty hard hits this year. He did fracture his index finger this season (on his throwing hand), but to his credit, played despite the hurt hand and NEVER used it as an excuse. He has not been permanantly injured, nor is he injured in every game, or any other way that the word 'perpetual' would be proper to use. Manning has been 'perpetually injured' this season. ^-- THAT is an accurate statement.

As for the rest of your post, the Lions have had injuries all season, same as any team, and it hasn't done a thing to anyones 'psyche'. So, good non-point there. Schwartz has already stated that the Lions are playing this game on Sunday to win, period. No resting starters is happening on our side of the ball, no matter how 'plain Jane' the Packers are.

I can't wait for this game Sunday, the Packers (and a few of their fans) need lowered a peg or two.

You of all people should understand my usage of "perpetually" here. Using that to describe Stafford may have pushed the bounds of hyperbole, however, using "Lions" to describe Detroit conjures greats roars of laughter around the world.

A truly accurate way to describe a Detroit football team would be the "Detroit Worms" or the "Detroit Maggots".

Yet, you insist on calling your disgrace of a football team the "Lions". I ask the ladies and gentlemen of jury, who is truly misusing the english language?

P.S. - Thank you neilfii. That was a fine defense.

 

[neilfii]

You of all people should understand my usage of "perpetually" here. Using that to describe Stafford may have pushed the bounds of hyperbole, however, using "Lions" to describe Detroit conjures greats roars of laughter around the world.

A truly accurate way to describe a Detroit football team would be the "Detroit Worms" or the "Detroit Maggots".

Yet, you insist on calling your disgrace of a football team the "Lions". I ask the ladies and gentlemen of jury, who is truly misusing the english language?

P.S. - Thank you neilfii. That was a fine defense.

It was my pleasure -- that's what the Packers and Packer fans do --play as a team.

 

[Jules]

I can't wait for this game Sunday, the Packers (and a few of their fans) need lowered a peg or two.

Of course you will find confident Packers fans. And why not? Really. But, I don't find this fanbase excessively cocky or anything.

And second why do the Packers themselves need to be lowered a peg? What could strike you wrongly about this team? I don't think they are a dirty or in your face team by any means. They seem to go about their business with a quiet confidence every week but certainly nothing excessive to me. I see much worse with some other teams which I won't get into. There is some swagger at times with the Packers IMO but nothing bad. I think it's a classy bunch of guys.

Lastly, the Packers may end up playing the Lions again. But, let's not act like if the Lions are the 5th seed that it's a given a young/inexperienced team goes into NY or Dallas and wins either. Both of those teams realize the Lions want them over the 6th seed to avoid NO. There may be a chip on either team's shoulders and especially the Cowboys who had a giant lead over the Lions at home early this season before a meltdown.

This is a lot of smack talking for a glorified preseason game.

 

[GreenBayGal]

It was my pleasure -- that's what the Packers and Packer fans do --play as a team.

This guy clearly doesn't know how smart you are, Professor.

 

[neilfii]

This guy clearly doesn't know how smart you are, Professor.

Oh, but he is a "walking dictionary." Truth is, I just don't like trolls coming on here, making braggadocious statements and then getting snarky when you actually call them on it.
I had to refrain on the part where he accused me of being a bandwagon fan and then when I responded his telling me that he really did not care how big of a fan I am.
You all know I'm not usually like that, but he apparently caught me at a bad time.

 

[G0PackG0]

I'm hearing Flynn will start. I hope he is willing to remain a backup I like him a lot. Last year of his contract I believe.

 

[ozbuc]

As I posted in another thread it is all about scoreboard. Our record is what it is. Going forward well we will see. I'M done with over done cliches now with the exception of Scoreboard Baby Scoreboard.. I will back out now.