Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="weeds" data-source="post: 974253" data-attributes="member: 39">...and I agree with this "kind of" statement .. it wasn't really a statement because it was qualified with "could be" - but the intent was there so, we're gonna hold you to it, man. <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" data-shortname=";)" /> I'll go one step further and qualify it to a lesser degree by saying that they will be 11 or 12 win teams provided their QB's don't go down. Perhaps I qualified it even more, but I'm on drugs right now anyway, so there's my excuse. What kinda person takes a 10-word post and turns it into a two paragraph response ... sheesh, now I have to start a second paragraph too.OK, I'm not pleased with losing to either team and I'm not going to qualify either loss. I'm going to say that the Pack lost to two better prepared teams (yes, coaching staff I'm pointing at you) who, in my opinion, wanted to win MORE. The same damned thing could happen this weekend - very easily - because the Packers have proven their inability to adjust ... period ... that opening game plan, offensively and defensively is carved into granite by lightning bolts and there will be no variation. Special Teams apparently doesn't game plan so no lightning bolt for them.</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 127 (members: 0, guests: 127)