GWheels
Cheesehead
It's a painting by Andrew Goralski called "Storm Chaser". The painting is 15"x 35".I so like the Matthews pic! What is the actual size & where'd u get it
It's a painting by Andrew Goralski called "Storm Chaser". The painting is 15"x 35".I so like the Matthews pic! What is the actual size & where'd u get it
My comment was in reference to the utter nonsense being spewed by some on this forum about this very topic last season. There were several members who insisted we needed to trade the house for Marshawn Lynch last season, because with him we win the Super Bowl, whereas without him, we don't make the playoffs.
While Grant was good there's talk of Michael Bush. He could be that bruiser but he's 27 & wants a long term deal but he's got 3 years of "shelf life" for a RB left. If we don't get a FA then by the 4th round we need a RB. We need to draft the best RB that's available at that time. We've got the Best WR core in the NFL now we need to work on our D & RBs. Lynch is a FA but will likely be tagged.
My comment was in reference to the utter nonsense being spewed by some on this forum about this very topic last season. There were several members who insisted we needed to trade the house for Marshawn Lynch last season, because with him we win the Super Bowl, whereas without him, we don't make the playoffs.
Yup, just like how we screwed up by not trading our whole draft for Marshawn Lynch last year...
Wow. I understood the push to acquire Lynch in the 2010 season since it was obvious Grant was greatly missed and Jackson was not up to the job of carrying the load as the featured back. So for those upset Thompson 'sat on his hands' waiting for Starks who hadn't played a "real" game of football for almost two years, I understood. But Thompson was vindicated by WINNING A TITLE his way, not your way. Still being bitter baffles me. You were decisively proven wrong, in fact as decisively as possible in the NFL: Thompson didn't have to trade for Lynch or any RB to win it all. Look, we've all been wrong, including Thompson, so why not just admit it when you are/were?I am still a bit bitter about not getting Lynch. With Lynch we may have made a run deep into the playoffs this year.
I don't think that's true anymore. For the top offensive teams like the Packers, the running game just has to be good enough so teams can't rush the passer without fear of being burned by the run. IMO more and more in the NFL the passing game sets up the running game.The run still sets up the pass.
That's an interesting observation ivo10. Teams like Houston would be in poor shape if they didn't have the running game. Not every team has Rodgers or Brady or Brees. The run still sets up the pass. McCarthy knows that too. He tries to have so many runs during a game even if it is not successful. He don't run as much as others but he don't have to. Running is important in the NFL and I believe it always will be. The league keeps putting in rules to try to make the passing game better to make it more exiting and therefore making more money. But you can't say that it's not exciting when Adrian Peterson or some other back (sorry for the Minnesota reference die hard fans) breaks through the line for a big gain.
In the 2011 season Ryan Grant averaged 4.2 yards a carry. James Starks averaged 4.3 and Marshawn Lynch averaged...... wait for it..... 4.2 yards
We can play "what if" all day long and accomplish nothing because no one can win that game because "what if" didn't happen. But I'll post again that if you build your team as a prolific passing offense - so much so that your franchise QB set an all-time QB rating record and the team led the league in scoring at 35 ppg - if that passing offense has its worst day in a season and a half, you aren't going to win even if you have a better than average RB.
You have to have a decent dunning game that will open up the passing game. Granted we weren't in the top 5 in rushing,it still helps to keep the D honestI don't think that's true anymore. For the top offensive teams like the Packers, the running game just has to be good enough so teams can't rush the passer without fear of being burned by the run. IMO more and more in the NFL the passing game sets up the running game.
Here are the top scoring five teams in the 2011 regular season and how they ranked in average yards rushing/game:
1. Packers 27th
2. Saints 6th
3. Patriots 20th
4. Lions 29th
5. Carolina 3rd
Here are the top 5 teams in average yards rushing/game and how they finished in scoring:
1. Broncos 25th
2. Texans 10th
3. Panthers 5th (tied)
4. Vikings 19th
5. Eagles 8th
Here are the top 5 teams in average yards passing/game and how they finished in scoring:
1. Saints 2nd
2. Patriots 3rd
3. Packers 1st
4. Lions 5th
5. Giants 9th
Finally, look at the Super Bowl participants: The Giants were 9th in scoring, 5th in passing yards/game and 32nd in rushing yards/game. The Pats were 3rd in scoring, 2nd in passing yards/game and 20th in rushing yards/game.
Yes, some teams depend upon the run more than the pass. But don’t the stats above show pretty clearly the passing game is more important and success in the passing game correlates more directly to scoring?
Prior to the Combine, James has a late second to third round grade.
If the Packers can tag and trade Flynn they have to get better compensation than Lynch IMO. Straight up for a draft pick what do you think the Hawks would get for Lynch? IMO Lynch would only marginally improve the Packers' RB situation at best. I would much prefer getting a second rounder for Flynn. Honestly, I'd rather have a comp 3rd rounder too. Or a player who can help on defense.A deal benefiting both teams involving Lynch and Flynn should be worked out.