Official Viking game

[bubba]

If they put Barclay in anywhere on the o line THEY ARE DONE!!!

 

[Sky King]

The Packers must run the ball. The back-up OTs are serviceable run blockers and nothing less-than incompetent at pass blocking. Tretter may be able to slow down the rush better than Barclay at LT but I wouldn't bet the farm on that one, either. Plus, somebody on the line is likely to sprain an ankle, thus throwing the whole game plan out of whack. My guess is that the Vikings play an eight man front like most everyone else has and they will commit extra attention to the run game and dare Rodgers to pass the ball.

If the Vikings don't try to run, run, run the ball their coach should be keel-hauled. If Peterson gets it rolling Bridgewater won't need to do much in the passing game. As lousy as their OL was during the last meeting I would have thought that Barclay was playing for them. The Packers, too, will need to commit to stopping the run.

The game plan for both teams may be similar. Interesting match-up.

 

[PackerDNA]

The Packers must run the ball. The back-up OTs are serviceable run blockers and nothing less-than incompetent at pass blocking. Tretter may be able to slow down the rush better than Barclay at LT but I wouldn't bet the farm on that one, either. Plus, somebody on the line is likely to sprain an ankle, thus throwing the whole game plan out of whack. My guess is that the Vikings play an eight man front like most everyone else has and they will commit extra attention to the run game and dare Rodgers to pass the ball.

If the Vikings don't try to run, run, run the ball their coach should be keel-hauled. If Peterson gets it rolling Bridgewater won't need to do much in the passing game. As lousy as their OL was during the last meeting I would have thought that Barclay was playing for them. The Packers, too, will need to commit to stopping the run.

The game plan for both teams may be similar. Interesting match-up.

I started to laugh at that one, then said no...wait. There's probably a good chance of that happening the way it's gone this year.

 

[Croak]

31-28 Whichever team the refs are for, that's who will win.

Or whichever team will make Vegas the most money....(adjusting my foil hat.)

 

[Deleted member 6794]

This game is a complete toss up. No clue which team will show up but I guess its just a matter of watching the first quarter. Shutting down AP will be a big task once again but can be done. This team has been beaten down so much this year by injuries it's hard to judge the true talent of the team. Tomorrow I'm just going to watch, once again, in optimism. Hopefully they can get it done.

While the Packers have been plagued by various nagging injuries at different positions they've been.pretty healthy this season compared to other teams.

 

[Sky King]

I started to laugh at that one, then said no...wait. There's probably a good chance of that happening the way it's gone this year.

Sorry. I omitted this: Such injuries seem to occur during the first quarter, first series of games. ("Packer's Luck" otherwise known as Murphy's Law in other circumstances)

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I KNOW this is negative of me, but I just want this season to end and put us out of our misery.

 

[weeds]

I KNOW this is negative of me, but I just want this season to end and put us out of our misery.

Buggy... damn it ... knock off the reverse psychology/karma thing. We all know full well that you're sittin' over there, sipping tea and gnoshing on a crumpet, fully vested in a Packer win today. You're just a "positivity" kinda guy that way.

Packers are a fringe team at this stage of the season. What I mean to say is that were it not for the fast start (and I hope McCarthy NEVER utters those words again), they might very well not be in the mix at all given the hell-in-a-handbasket circumstances of late.

I firmly believe that the Packers know that there are hats and T-shirts on the line and that they're not going anywhere deep in the playoffs and will play "UP" today. Now if that translates into a win, I don't know. My crystal ball is a bit hazy this morning.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

I DO NOT drink tea. Foul stuff. I do like crumpets though.

 

[yooperpackfan]

I DO NOT drink tea. Foul stuff. I do like crumpets though.

You should drink some "Sleepy Time Tea" after this stinking night game, it will make you sleep better.

 

[Sky King]

I DO NOT drink tea. Foul stuff. I do like crumpets though.

Hmmm. You always struck me as a guy who eats nails and washes it down with Texaco.

 

[PackerDNA]

Yeah, it's cool and all to be flexed to the national Sunday night game, but it kind of screws me up. I've got some things to do tomorrow and have to get up at 4:30 AM, and even without OT I don't see the game ending before 10:30.

 

[Half Empty]

Or whichever team will make Vegas the most money....(adjusting my foil hat.)

Pretty sure those folks make their money, regardless.

 

[Half Empty]

Buggy... damn it ... knock off the reverse psychology/karma thing. We all know full well that you're sittin' over there, sipping tea and gnoshing on a crumpet, fully vested in a Packer win today. You're just a "positivity" kinda guy that way.

Packers are a fringe team at this stage of the season. What I mean to say is that were it not for the fast start (and I hope McCarthy NEVER utters those words again), they might very well not be in the mix at all given the hell-in-a-handbasket circumstances of late.

I firmly believe that the Packers know that there are hats and T-shirts on the line and that they're not going anywhere deep in the playoffs and will play "UP" today. Now if that translates into a win, I don't know. My crystal ball is a bit hazy this morning.

Darn, my first thought was that Buggy and I finally agreed on something, and you have to go and spoil the moment.

 

[Poppa San]

Yeah, it's cool and all to be flexed to the national Sunday night game, but it kind of screws me up. I've got some things to do tomorrow and have to get up at 4:30 AM, and even without OT I don't see the game ending before 10:30.

Messed me up to. I lose holiday pay if I am late the next work day. I won't get out of the stadium tonight until midnight. Also have the 4:30 alarm.

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Hmmm. You always struck me as a guy who eats nails and washes it down with Texaco.

That's my alta-ego

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

You should drink some "Sleepy Time Tea" after this stinking night game, it will make you sleep better.

sedatives work better

 

[thisisnate]

game dayyyyyyyy. hate late kickoff games

 

[TJV]

The Packers must run the ball. The back-up OTs are serviceable run blockers and nothing less-than incompetent at pass blocking. Tretter may be able to slow down the rush better than Barclay at LT but I wouldn't bet the farm on that one, either.

Unfortunately I think the plural “back-up OTs” is sadly humorous: They really only have one and he’s not good. (BTW I disagree with bubba: With Bakhtiari & Bulaga at OTs, I think the OL would be OK with Barclay at one of the OGs.) I do think Tretter is better than Barclay vs. the pass at OT but that’s a very low bar to get over. The main thing IMO on passing downs is McCarthy has to realize his LT needs help on anything other than a very quick-hitting throw.

Hmmm. You always struck me as a guy who eats nails and washes it down with Texaco.

Nah, Bill is subject to his wife’s pain-causing grooming orders. Bill wears the pants in his household, but they’re short pants. And an Englishman who doesn't like tea? What's the Queen's email address?

 

[I asked LT to delete my acct]

Unfortunately I think the plural “back-up OTs” is sadly humorous: They really only have one and he’s not good. (BTW I disagree with bubba: With Bakhtiari & Bulaga at OTs, I think the OL would be OK with Barclay at one of the OGs.) I do think Tretter is better than Barclay vs. the pass at OT but that’s a very low bar to get over. The main thing IMO on passing downs is McCarthy has to realize his LT needs help on anything other than a very quick-hitting throw. Nah, Bill is subject to his wife’s pain-causing grooming orders. Bill wears the pants in his household, but they’re short pants. And an Englishman who doesn't like tea? What's the Queen's email address?

You cheeky git. I`m the boss in my house.....and I have wifes permission to say it.

 

[Ogsponge]

It matters because you never know what can happen, even if it seems like your team isn't going anywhere. The best chance at winning the Super Bowl is by playing the weakest teams en route to San Francisco. We beat the Redskins, maybe Carolina or Arizona lay an egg, and then we are two wins from the Lombardi trophy. Whatever gets us closer to the title is preferable for me.

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Period end of story. Your best chance at winning the Super Bowl is being the better team, in order to be the best you have to beat the best.

 

[red4tribe]

wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Period end of story. Your best chance at winning the Super Bowl is being the better team, in order to be the best you have to beat the best.

Obviously you need to be better than the team you play but otherwise I completely disagree. Look at the 2010 Steelers. They were not the best team in the AFC, the Patriots were. They got whacked at home during the regular season by the Patriots and would have gotten beat if they went to Foxboro for the AFC championship game but they didn't have to. Why? Because the Jets played over their head and beat the Patriots in the divisional round, making the championship game in Pittsburgh and giving the Steelers a weaker opponent.

It's sounds all noble to say you need to beat the best to be the best but it simply isn't always true. I'll root to play weaker teams if it makes the route to San Francisco easier.

 

[Ogsponge]

Obviously you need to be better than the team you play but otherwise I completely disagree. Look at the 2010 Steelers. They were not the best team in the AFC, the Patriots were. They got whacked at home during the regular season by the Patriots and would have gotten beat if they went to Foxboro for the AFC championship game but they didn't have to. Why? Because the Jets played over their head and beat the Patriots in the divisional round, making the championship game in Pittsburgh and giving the Steelers a weaker opponent.

It's sounds all noble to say you need to beat the best to be the best but it simply isn't always true. I'll root to play weaker teams if it makes the route to San Francisco easier.

Is always nice when someone proves my point for me. What was the end result for the Steelers in the 2010 playoffs after beating a weaker team to reach the Super Bowl?

 

[red4tribe]

Is always nice when someone proves my point for me. What was the end result for the Steelers in the 2010 playoffs after beating a weaker team to reach the Super Bowl?

What happened in the Super Bowl is irrelevant to my point. It doesn't matter. They wouldn't have gotten there without going through a weaker schedule. You could say the same about the second to last team we beat I the super bowl too. The '96 Broncos were the best AFC team but the upstart Jaguars cleared the way for the Patriots to go to the big game. You could make a legitimate argument that the 1996 Jaguars and the 2010 Jets made the Super Bowl championship easier for us as they eliminated the best AFC teams.

If you need an example of a team that went all the way look at the 2008 Steelers. Got to face rookie Joe Flacco in the championship game rather than the #1 seed 13-3 Titans.

It's simply lunacy to me to deny that who you play in the playoffs doesn't affect how far you go or how well you do.

 

[Beagle]

Good luck tonight you Cheeseheads. Give 'em hell.