Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Possible wr trade targets?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Do7" data-source="post: 866037" data-attributes="member: 13398"><p>Huge wall of text eh? Alright then it's been awhile since I've went into full debate mode. This should be fun.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So let me get this straight, because I'm not fully grasping the point you're trying to make with your starting sentence. By your first sentence alone, you proved my point in regards that The Packers did in fact have a tougher schedule, especially considering the factors such as a new coach, new system, inexperienced receivers, Rodgers coming back from an injury, and the difficulties in regards to our opponents improved. Plus let's also bring up the fact that you failed to mention that The Chargers along with KC were previous playoff teams from last year, along with Dallas, and Philly was a formidable opponent. As for the opponents goes:</p><p></p><p>1. How did Philly embarrass us when they barely beat us? So if according to your logic if the opposing team scores multiple points against us they embarrassed us? That's interesting logic, if we go by that same logic, then NO got "embarassed" far more than us as they've played several games in which they gave up 24 or more points.</p><p></p><p>2. You keep bringing up how KC played without Mahomes, and yet you CONTINUE to ignore the fact that had he played and "lost" I guarantee, people like yourself would've used his injury as an excuse, even though Matt Moore did pretty well in that game and honestly did enough for them to win. Plus again you negate the fact that A. KC had the better offensive weapons, had HFA, and had the better head coach who's made a career of being a quarterback whisperer.</p><p></p><p>3. As for us beating a playoff team convincingly, tell you what, name another playoff team besides San Fran's win over us, that beat another playoff team convincingly. That fact that you're putting a lot of stock in regards to how we win in the regular season is questionable. Everyone knows that the postseason is a different animal all together, don't believe me, ask NO and Baltimore how things went for them in spite of their "regular season success." Bottomline: At the end of the day, it's all about winning. That's all that matters. You want to see huge leads and "decisive" wins, I suggest you go watch college football.</p><p></p><p>Matter of fact since KC are the Super Bowl Champs, tell me what game against a playoff team they've won decisively in the regular season? I'm looking at their schedule and the fact of the matter is that they've certainly won "ugly" as well. I will wait.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>At this point all you're doing is arguing what if scenarios that you have no evidence of backing up or proving. and Bottomline is we won. So let me get this straight, what piece of evidence do you have that had Seattle been healthy, they would've beaten us? Matter of fact I'm curious to how you've drawn that conclusion with Minnesota and Detroit considering we've BEATEN them both times when they were healthy, and the funny thing is when we played Detroit we were WITHOUT key players on both sides of the ball! So I fail to see how you've drawn that conclusion. Matter of fact the same applies when we beat KC now when I think about it! <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/laugh.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":laugh:" title="Laugh :laugh:" data-shortname=":laugh:" /></p><p></p><p>Every team has injuries, and yes some players are more crucial than others, but don't give me these fantasy what ifs. I've already explained how KC had more than enough to win, and you have no way of proving that Seattle would've beaten us at full strength. Every team plays hurt dude.</p><p></p><p>As for Rodgers in The NFC Championship game, as I said before Rodgers played horrible, but let me ask you a serious question, who would've played better under those circumstances? The only person you can make an argument for is Mahomes, and honestly I don't think he would've fared any better. The difference is that he has the better weapons, and head coach. I'm not gonna sit here and argue semantics over the fumbles and ints because I already said that Rodgers played poorly, but like I said EVERYONE played poorly outside of Adams.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good lord...We freaking made it to the NFC Championship in our FIRST YEAR under a new head coach, and you yourself has admitted that The Packers weren't even the favorites to win their division. So which one is it exactly? You complain about how we won ugly in the regular season and didn't have decisive wins, but then our team lead by our QB takes us into a deep playoff run, and somehow he's overpaid? So who exactly other than Mahomes should be paid more than him? Wilson? Brees? Watson? As for San Fran's defense, because I didn't bring this up earlier, as I recall that was the same defense that was giving Mahomes fits as he also threw 2 ints that game, the difference is San Fran decided to abandon the run in which KC players went on and ADMITTED afterwards that they were glad they did because they had no answers for it. Keep in mind Rodgers in spite of his poor performance did manage to bring the game back, unfortunately the defense couldn't hold San Fran's running attack. So let's not pretend that SF's defense doesn't give opposing teams headaches. Mahomes didn't have a good game either.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Didn't SF barely beat Seattle that same week, if not for a none PI call, and Carrol being an idiot (yet again)? I seem to recall KC making it to the Superbowl with the 2 seed. You seem to put a lot of stock into QBR, which again is a bs stat. If it was that good then guys like Dak would've made it to the playoffs and have a winning record right? I had to bold that just to make sure I read that right. I think we're done here. If you truly believe that what you said then there's really nothing more to be said. Name 20 other QBs that are better than Rodgers.</p><p></p><p></p><p>So Rodgers was responsible for the defense giving up over 300 yards to a 3rd string RB and making him look like the second coming of Jim Brown? You know what? I got nothing to say if that's truly the conclusion you've drawn. I'm just gonna say I respectfully disagree completely.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Do7, post: 866037, member: 13398"] Huge wall of text eh? Alright then it's been awhile since I've went into full debate mode. This should be fun. So let me get this straight, because I'm not fully grasping the point you're trying to make with your starting sentence. By your first sentence alone, you proved my point in regards that The Packers did in fact have a tougher schedule, especially considering the factors such as a new coach, new system, inexperienced receivers, Rodgers coming back from an injury, and the difficulties in regards to our opponents improved. Plus let's also bring up the fact that you failed to mention that The Chargers along with KC were previous playoff teams from last year, along with Dallas, and Philly was a formidable opponent. As for the opponents goes: 1. How did Philly embarrass us when they barely beat us? So if according to your logic if the opposing team scores multiple points against us they embarrassed us? That's interesting logic, if we go by that same logic, then NO got "embarassed" far more than us as they've played several games in which they gave up 24 or more points. 2. You keep bringing up how KC played without Mahomes, and yet you CONTINUE to ignore the fact that had he played and "lost" I guarantee, people like yourself would've used his injury as an excuse, even though Matt Moore did pretty well in that game and honestly did enough for them to win. Plus again you negate the fact that A. KC had the better offensive weapons, had HFA, and had the better head coach who's made a career of being a quarterback whisperer. 3. As for us beating a playoff team convincingly, tell you what, name another playoff team besides San Fran's win over us, that beat another playoff team convincingly. That fact that you're putting a lot of stock in regards to how we win in the regular season is questionable. Everyone knows that the postseason is a different animal all together, don't believe me, ask NO and Baltimore how things went for them in spite of their "regular season success." Bottomline: At the end of the day, it's all about winning. That's all that matters. You want to see huge leads and "decisive" wins, I suggest you go watch college football. Matter of fact since KC are the Super Bowl Champs, tell me what game against a playoff team they've won decisively in the regular season? I'm looking at their schedule and the fact of the matter is that they've certainly won "ugly" as well. I will wait. At this point all you're doing is arguing what if scenarios that you have no evidence of backing up or proving. and Bottomline is we won. So let me get this straight, what piece of evidence do you have that had Seattle been healthy, they would've beaten us? Matter of fact I'm curious to how you've drawn that conclusion with Minnesota and Detroit considering we've BEATEN them both times when they were healthy, and the funny thing is when we played Detroit we were WITHOUT key players on both sides of the ball! So I fail to see how you've drawn that conclusion. Matter of fact the same applies when we beat KC now when I think about it! :laugh: Every team has injuries, and yes some players are more crucial than others, but don't give me these fantasy what ifs. I've already explained how KC had more than enough to win, and you have no way of proving that Seattle would've beaten us at full strength. Every team plays hurt dude. As for Rodgers in The NFC Championship game, as I said before Rodgers played horrible, but let me ask you a serious question, who would've played better under those circumstances? The only person you can make an argument for is Mahomes, and honestly I don't think he would've fared any better. The difference is that he has the better weapons, and head coach. I'm not gonna sit here and argue semantics over the fumbles and ints because I already said that Rodgers played poorly, but like I said EVERYONE played poorly outside of Adams. Good lord...We freaking made it to the NFC Championship in our FIRST YEAR under a new head coach, and you yourself has admitted that The Packers weren't even the favorites to win their division. So which one is it exactly? You complain about how we won ugly in the regular season and didn't have decisive wins, but then our team lead by our QB takes us into a deep playoff run, and somehow he's overpaid? So who exactly other than Mahomes should be paid more than him? Wilson? Brees? Watson? As for San Fran's defense, because I didn't bring this up earlier, as I recall that was the same defense that was giving Mahomes fits as he also threw 2 ints that game, the difference is San Fran decided to abandon the run in which KC players went on and ADMITTED afterwards that they were glad they did because they had no answers for it. Keep in mind Rodgers in spite of his poor performance did manage to bring the game back, unfortunately the defense couldn't hold San Fran's running attack. So let's not pretend that SF's defense doesn't give opposing teams headaches. Mahomes didn't have a good game either. Didn't SF barely beat Seattle that same week, if not for a none PI call, and Carrol being an idiot (yet again)? I seem to recall KC making it to the Superbowl with the 2 seed. You seem to put a lot of stock into QBR, which again is a bs stat. If it was that good then guys like Dak would've made it to the playoffs and have a winning record right? I had to bold that just to make sure I read that right. I think we're done here. If you truly believe that what you said then there's really nothing more to be said. Name 20 other QBs that are better than Rodgers. So Rodgers was responsible for the defense giving up over 300 yards to a 3rd string RB and making him look like the second coming of Jim Brown? You know what? I got nothing to say if that's truly the conclusion you've drawn. I'm just gonna say I respectfully disagree completely. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
scheeler
ExpatPacker
Green_Bay_Packers
Latest posts
Assessing the Draft Class (2024)
Latest: OldSchool101
32 minutes ago
Draft Talk
2024 Round 7, pick 245: Michael Pratt, QB
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 3:32 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 2nd Rd pick #58 Javon Bullard S
Latest: Thirteen Below
Today at 3:28 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Not too soon 2024 roster prediction
Latest: Sanguine camper
Today at 3:00 PM
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
2024 draft discussion thread
Latest: Pokerbrat2000
Today at 1:57 PM
Draft Talk
Forums
Open Football Discussion
Green Bay Packers Fan Forum
Possible wr trade targets?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top