Pack93z
You retired too? .... Not me. I'm in my prime
Our #2 is starting in the Pro Bowl. His name is Al Harris.
And we are the ones underestimating.. yep that is the ticket. :roll:
Our #2 is starting in the Pro Bowl. His name is Al Harris.
all about da packers said:It'll be interesting to see how much the Packers blitz.
We blitz quite heavily near the end of the season, but normally our scheme isn't blitz heavy. Early in the season, we relied a lot on our front 4 to generate a rush.
Gah, I can't wait till this Saturday.
My predisction pre season was 11-5. So i was closer then Obi1! I missed by 2 games, he missed by 3!!! :lol:Zombieslayer said:DakotaT said:Zombieslayer said:I am worried about the Cows. If TO is healthy by the time we play them, it's going to be tough.
I'm not worried about anything Zombie. 34-0 over the Vikings will last me an eternity. Everything else from here on out is Gravy.
How many of you even dreamed of a 13-3 season?
I certainly didn't. I expected 8-8 or 9-7.
But Obi1 is disappointed. He said we'd be 16-0.
cheesey said:My predisction pre season was 11-5. So i was closer then Obi1! I missed by 2 games, he missed by 3!!! :lol:Zombieslayer said:DakotaT said:Zombieslayer said:I am worried about the Cows. If TO is healthy by the time we play them, it's going to be tough.
I'm not worried about anything Zombie. 34-0 over the Vikings will last me an eternity. Everything else from here on out is Gravy.
How many of you even dreamed of a 13-3 season?
I certainly didn't. I expected 8-8 or 9-7.
But Obi1 is disappointed. He said we'd be 16-0.
YES I AM disappointed! I think we should fire TT and MM and hire MT and TM.
No seriously, YOU were NOT looked at as crazy, nuts, or unrealistic. They thought I was.
I could have predicted a 13-3 and gotten the same kind of reaction but why stop there? Thus, the 16-0.
But, I am now predicting a Packer win over Seattle and a Cowboys loss.
So, lets PLAY ON!
Obi1 said:cheesey said:My predisction pre season was 11-5. So i was closer then Obi1! I missed by 2 games, he missed by 3!!! :lol:Zombieslayer said:DakotaT said:Zombieslayer said:I am worried about the Cows. If TO is healthy by the time we play them, it's going to be tough.
I'm not worried about anything Zombie. 34-0 over the Vikings will last me an eternity. Everything else from here on out is Gravy.
How many of you even dreamed of a 13-3 season?
I certainly didn't. I expected 8-8 or 9-7.
But Obi1 is disappointed. He said we'd be 16-0.
YES I AM disappointed! I think we should fire TT and MM and hire MT and TM.
No seriously, YOU were NOT looked at as crazy, nuts, or unrealistic. They thought I was.
I could have predicted a 13-3 and gotten the same kind of reaction but why stop there? Thus, the 16-0.
But, I am now predicting a Packer win over Seattle and a Cowboys loss.
So, lets PLAY ON!
I'm predicting Packers beat Seattle by double digits.
I also predict that your #1 student goes over to the Dark Side. I know you really believe in the kid, but there's something about him I just don't like. I'd keep a closer eye on him if I were you.
Whoever the other younger unexperienced guy is, he sounds alot like our #2 in Kelly Jennings.
as well as DJ Hackett who had 100 yards last week. Does Nate Burleson even have a jogging buddy to run down the sidelines with as he's hauling in passes?
Somebody has to cover donald driver and somebody has to cover jennings. Jennings should be primary leaving Donald open for some plays.
Packers have a better defense AND the better offense... Cold weather, lambeau field, a rested Packer feam... Packer win.
Yahoo agrees:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/playoffs;_ylt=ArPKnUyanvMMc1hg1a0EZjc5nYcB
Check it out.
Packers have a better defense AND the better offense... Cold weather, lambeau field, a rested Packer feam... Packer win.
Yahoo agrees:
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/playoffs;_ylt=ArPKnUyanvMMc1hg1a0EZjc5nYcB
Check it out.
Mike Holmgren has lost his last three visits to Lambeau, but he's learned a lot from the previous trips.
I did think the Alexander mention was kind of odd too. We have been waiting 2 years for him to get back to some semblence of his 05 form. It doesn't look like its gonna happen. Especially for an RB past the age of 30...
I have utmost respect for Holmgren as a coach, but their O is weak.
In the '07 season, good O has trumped good D. I think this game will be a continuation of that trend.
Zombieslayer said:I have utmost respect for Holmgren as a coach, but their O is weak.
In the '07 season, good O has trumped good D. I think this game will be a continuation of that trend.
That last comment had me laughing.I'd expect Packers fans to be pretty educated about the game so I'm surprised to see a silly statemetn like that. So suddently the golden rule of defense wins championships is now somehow obsolete? I doubt very much that the Packers are dumb enough to underestimate the Seahawks defense but if they do they're going to be...rudely awakened.
I watched every Seahawks game this year and I can tell you that their D is good. They played a pretty weak schedule so there's good reason to be a little skeptical. But you can only play the hand you're dealt. If they had the offense they had two years ago when they went to the Superbowl they'd be unstoppable. You are right in that the Hawks offense is potentially their achilles heal. They'll score about the Packers but will probably generally score quickly and hand the ball back to Farve. That's bad for lots of reasons but mostly because the defense will tend to wear out. We'll see. Hawks 24, Pack 17.
evad04 said:Seattle's front seven scares me. Regardless of what opinions you have about there offense, there's no denying Kerney, Peterson, and Tatupu. Three pro-bowlers right there. I think the key is going to be passing the ball well and spreading them out to get those LBs off the field. That said, we need to run the ball as well. My hope is that we don't become predictable, though.
Favre's release has gotten faster as he's getting older. If they put 8 men in the box, we'll destroy them with our passing. If they put 7, Ryan Grant will eat them for breakfast.
This is the one game I'm not worried about. Don't worry, MM is and he's taken steps to ensure we'll win this. But as a fan, I'm not whatsoever.
I am worried about the Cows. If TO is healthy by the time we play them, it's going to be tough.
MarkAshton said:Zombieslayer said:I have utmost respect for Holmgren as a coach, but their O is weak.
In the '07 season, good O has trumped good D. I think this game will be a continuation of that trend.
That last comment had me laughing.I'd expect Packers fans to be pretty educated about the game so I'm surprised to see a silly statemetn like that. So suddently the golden rule of defense wins championships is now somehow obsolete? I doubt very much that the Packers are dumb enough to underestimate the Seahawks defense but if they do they're going to be...rudely awakened.
I watched every Seahawks game this year and I can tell you that their D is good. They played a pretty weak schedule so there's good reason to be a little skeptical. But you can only play the hand you're dealt. If they had the offense they had two years ago when they went to the Superbowl they'd be unstoppable. You are right in that the Hawks offense is potentially their achilles heal. They'll score about the Packers but will probably generally score quickly and hand the ball back to Farve. That's bad for lots of reasons but mostly because the defense will tend to wear out. We'll see. Hawks 24, Pack 17.
Did you bother reading my post?
Wait, don't answer. I'll answer for you. No, you didn't. Or maybe you have a bad comprehension of the English language. If English is your second language, then my apologies.
I'll reword this to make it easier for someone who speaks English as a second language. The Seattle D is good, but the trend in 2007 is that good O beats good D.
Zombieslayer said:MarkAshton said:Zombieslayer said:I have utmost respect for Holmgren as a coach, but their O is weak.
In the '07 season, good O has trumped good D. I think this game will be a continuation of that trend.
That last comment had me laughing.I'd expect Packers fans to be pretty educated about the game so I'm surprised to see a silly statemetn like that. So suddently the golden rule of defense wins championships is now somehow obsolete? I doubt very much that the Packers are dumb enough to underestimate the Seahawks defense but if they do they're going to be...rudely awakened.
I watched every Seahawks game this year and I can tell you that their D is good. They played a pretty weak schedule so there's good reason to be a little skeptical. But you can only play the hand you're dealt. If they had the offense they had two years ago when they went to the Superbowl they'd be unstoppable. You are right in that the Hawks offense is potentially their achilles heal. They'll score about the Packers but will probably generally score quickly and hand the ball back to Farve. That's bad for lots of reasons but mostly because the defense will tend to wear out. We'll see. Hawks 24, Pack 17.
Did you bother reading my post?
Wait, don't answer. I'll answer for you. No, you didn't. Or maybe you have a bad comprehension of the English language. If English is your second language, then my apologies.
I'll reword this to make it easier for someone who speaks English as a second language. The Seattle D is good, but the trend in 2007 is that good O beats good D.
I didn't mean to offend you. But yes I did read your post. I was disagreeing with your leap of faith that in 2007 good O beats good D. When all is said and done, defense is the key to winning championships. I suppose one could argue that New England might prove that to be false but they haven't one it all yet...and have an underrated defense.
I didn't mean to offend you. But yes I did read your post. I was disagreeing with your leap of faith that in 2007 good O beats good D. When all is said and done, defense is the key to winning championships. I suppose one could argue that New England might prove that to be false but they haven't one it all yet...and have an underrated defense.
Bottom line is that the Seahawks haven't allowed a lot of points this year. Even including their last game where most of the D rested and they gave up 44 points they tied the Pack in points allowed, tied for 6th at 18 points/game. If you throw out the last game then the points/game average for the season was 16.6. My prediction: Hawks 24, Pack 17.
all about da packers said:Whoever the other younger unexperienced guy is, he sounds alot like our #2 in Kelly Jennings.
Of course then there is our TE Donald Lee, who had 48 receptions for almost 600 yards (585 to be exact). I'm sure Tatupu will have to be on his game to cover Lee well, and that will limit Tatupu's utilization as a blitzing LBer.
Zombieslayer said:evad04 said:Seattle's front seven scares me. Regardless of what opinions you have about there offense, there's no denying Kerney, Peterson, and Tatupu. Three pro-bowlers right there. I think the key is going to be passing the ball well and spreading them out to get those LBs off the field. That said, we need to run the ball as well. My hope is that we don't become predictable, though.
Favre's release has gotten faster as he's getting older. If they put 8 men in the box, we'll destroy them with our passing. If they put 7, Ryan Grant will eat them for breakfast.
This is the one game I'm not worried about. Don't worry, MM is and he's taken steps to ensure we'll win this. But as a fan, I'm not whatsoever.
I am worried about the Cows. If TO is healthy by the time we play them, it's going to be tough.
If this is the one game you're not worried about then you're going to be a very nervous man come Saturday. They don't continually blitz...the LB's generally fall back into coverage but because they're so fast they have a lot of flexibility to fake blitz and drop back into coverage and still stay on the man or, when they do blitz, their speed enables them to slip past blockers and smash QB's. Kearney and Peterson are both animals. I guarantee that both will at least knock Farve on his butt a few times and will likely sack him a time or two. Seattle's secondary was very...mediocre last year. They got burned for big plays many times. This year they have rarely been badly burned. The teams that do score tend to do so by throwing a lot of short to medium range passes. I haven't watched Farvre enough to see how fast he can get rid of a pass but that only works if there's a man open.
Bottom line is that the Seahawks haven't allowed a lot of points this year. Even including their last game where most of the D rested and they gave up 44 points they tied the Pack in points allowed, tied for 6th at 18 points/game. If you throw out the last game then the points/game average for the season was 16.6. My prediction: Hawks 24, Pack 17.