History: Packers Crushed in Minnesota Last Season 27 to 28
by Brandon on Oct 1, 2009 7:00 AM CDT
in Analysis
53 comments
Although the Green Bay Packers narrowly lost the game last season in Minnesota on a late missed FG by K Mason Crosby, it wasn't really that close. 3 INTs by QB Gus Frerotte, one returned for a TD by FS Nick Collins, and a punt return for a TD by CB Will Blackmon, kept the score close. Since they can't count on two TDs like that again, can they fix the mistakes of 2008 in time for the game on Monday night?
| Year | Yards Gained | Yards Allowed | Turnover Margin | Final |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 184 | 361 | +3 | L 27-28 |
| 2007 | 384 | 382 | 0 | W 23-16 |
| 2006 | 394 | 312 | +2 | W 23-17 |
Both Brad Childress and Mike McCarthy were hired before the 2006 season, so anything before that probably has little bearing on the current matchup. A few things stand out from these games:
- When QB Brett Favre takes the field, he'll be the 4th different QB to start their home game against the Packers in the past four seasons. (2006-Brad Johnson; 2007-Kelly Holcomb; 2008-Gus Frerotte). QB Daunte Culpepper started every home game against the Packers from 2000-2005.
- The Packers only turnovers were two fumbles in 2007.
- In 2007, Brad Childress gave the Packers a giant gift by limiting RB Adrian Peterson to 12 carries.
- In 2008, the offensive line crumbled as the offense was limited to 184 yards.
After all the sacks and hits QB Aaron Rodgers has taken this season, reading about the pass rush he faced last season is deja vu all over again. Although the pass defense kept them in the game with 3 INTs, the run defense collapsed as Peterson ran for almost 200 yards. Childress didn't make the same mistake he made in 2007.
The 2008 game, with only 184 yards on offense, stands out like a fluke. But the problems they had last season (poor pass protection, struggling run defense) still remain. Especially if LT Chad Clifton is unable to play. The run defense has already allowed two 100 yard rushers in the first three games. Can we really count on the pass protection and run defense to keep them in the game? Or will the problems from 2008 return on Monday night?
0 recs |
53 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Madden Results for the game:
Packers: 31 Vikings: 17
*Rodgers 102.4 P.R.
Grants + Rodgers = 70yrds rushing
Woodson= 1int, 1TD
*Favre= 98.3 P.R.
Peterson=79yrds.
Green and Gold / Black, and White
by OznCoop on Oct 1, 2009 8:02 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Only one problem,
This game is real, and “not” a video game.
that said I believe this game will be a lot closer than most people think.
Both teams are equally hyped , and both have something to prove.
27-24 could go either way
take a kid fishing, it's good for the soul. not only yours, but the child's as well !
by whanabarf on Oct 1, 2009 9:54 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
1 game isn't the best data
Let’s see a sample size of, say, 100 games.
by Danwood on Oct 1, 2009 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
gut check time
I think the winning game plan relies on our CBs being able to shut down their WRs and our front 7 containing their running game AND their TEs. If we can keep MIN under 20 points, we’ve got a shot at this.
Conventional wisdom says their front 7 is likely going to dominate our o-line and shut down our running game. Their secondary has a chance to keep our WRs in check, and our TEs haven’t been involved thusfar this season and will probably be needed for protection.
It’d be a gutsy gutsy move, but I’d like to see Grant cram it down their throats all night long. I don’t know if we’ve got it together up front to pull it off, but doing so is the best way to keep Pederson off the field. Plus, using this game as a linchpin would set the tone up front for the rest of the season. Or it could all fall apart.
If we don’t own the line of scrimmage, then this is going to be something akin to a 35-10 MIN victory. If we pull it all together, then I think we could steal a 17-16 victory.
by swilldog on Oct 1, 2009 10:28 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Hype
This game has the potential to be close, but I have a feeling it won’t live up to the hype.
Either Favre will try to do too much early and get pick-6’d, or Chilly will be out-coached (again) and the Packer game plan will find the holes in the Viking D (or AR will scramble and take the wind out of the D’s sails)
OR
The Vikings front four will wreak havoc on Rodgers, cause some turnovers, and the offense w/ AD will have short fields to work from all of the time.
Since I’m a Vikes fan, I’ll have to say Vikings win, 27-10.
Go VIKES!
by JasonAve6413 on Oct 1, 2009 10:34 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
all right
A vikings fan with perspective. All I hear all week is here in MN is the hype machine rolling about how unstoppable they are. I have NO confidence in this one, and I agree I think one way another this one ends up a 10-14 point victory for someone. Neither QB has made mistakes yet really and I think this game will be the start of it for one of them. My hope is its the Packers.
by TrevorR on Oct 1, 2009 2:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Don't See It
I don’t see the Vikings winning by 17 points so I don’t know if I would call that perspective coming from a Vikings fan. Someone important (Favre, Rodgers) would have to play absolutely terrible on either side for the Vikings or the Packers to lose by 17. I just don’t see it personally.
by GGGamer on Oct 1, 2009 3:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Border Battle Haiku
Packers and Vikings
Rivalry intensifies
4 times over 4
http://FavreHaiku.com
Clark Osborn - PackerHaiku.com | FavreHaiku.com | BadgerHaiku.com
by PackerHaiku on Oct 1, 2009 10:42 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Clifton is not practicing today...
and I would prefer he doesn’t start on Monday. The Chad Clifton – Jared Allen matchup tilts toward Allen, even without Clifton’s gimpy ankle. Clifton just isn’t quick enough to be effective against him.
But that is not the primary reason for holding Clifton out until after the Bye week. With him not practicing today, I fear we are getting into the same routine we had all last year: Clifton has nagging injuries, he’s a veteran so the team chooses to “be smart” about his recovery, he doesn’t practice all week, Clifton is inserted into LT on game day, and the line spends the whole first quarter learning how to play as a unit all over again. Starters need to practice, period. This is especially true on offensive line, which functions as a cohesive unit by design. This is especially, especially true when the majority of the line is… inexperienced at the NFL level.
It is short-sighted to evaluate offensive linemen individually. That’s why the “5 best linemen” theory is a bunch of bunk. No matter their individual skills, you can’t just throw 5 men together on game day and expect them to execute complicated pass and run blocking schemes. For data on how well that theory works, please see the Packers entire 2008 season.
If the Packers try to pull that again on Monday, they are going to be very sorry. What’s the Packer record on safeties against?
by RobertArthur on Oct 1, 2009 12:33 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It would be nice if they had a real backup LT
With Clifton out, MM is reduced to using his second best left tackle, his second best left guard, and his second best center, so I’m sure MM is toying with using an 80 percent healthy Clifton because it will allow him not to weaken two other positions. However, I think you are right. As an offensive lineman who played in the 80s at the college level, I think it’s much better that linemen practice and play together at their own positions, rather than to try to move them all over the line. Linemen are not just “linemen.” Each position is different and each requires different skills and a different mindset. If I practice all week at guard, it’s not really all that easy to switch to tackle, or center, on game day.
by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 4:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
The biggest problem with pass blocking last season was the late season struggles of Clifton, as he played through an assortment of injuries. I’d rather have 5 healthy, and prepared, lineman then Clifton hobbling around.
The problem is I don’t have a lot of faith in Colledge, but there is nothing to be done about that before next Monday.
by Brandon on Oct 1, 2009 11:39 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Peterson was injured in that game in 2007
which is why he had 12 carries
Or if Peterson's "troublesome" back gives out. Because he's, you know, carrying the team. And some of those guys are heavy.
Mitchell M
by blackoutsox on Oct 1, 2009 1:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
at the end
While its true that he did go down, they weren’t running anyway. He and Chester combined for about 15 carries. The game was getting out of reach and their offense did NOTHING. Not even 300 yds combined offense for the game.
by TrevorR on Oct 1, 2009 2:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't remember that
He did get hurt in the Packer game at Lambeau, but that was six weeks later.
by Brandon on Oct 1, 2009 11:19 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Doesn't matter
The bottom line is we did get all those turnovers, and special teams TDs. Why could we not get a defensive or special teams TD again? It’s not very likely but it could still happen.
This is kind of like playing the “what if” game. What if we don’t get those defensive and special teams TDs. Well we probably wouldn’t have been as close to winning. What if Dre Bly picks the pass of that Favre threw right to his chest? Then he likely takes it back for a TD, and the Vikes would probably have lost.
The bottom line is both things did happen.
And why couldn’t we get a defensive TD or special teams TD? Favre has looked mediocore thus far plain and simple. Yes the drive was masterfully engineered and led by him. But go back and look at his 3 drives before that. He looked lost. He threw 3-4 balls that could have been picked. We have a secondary full of ballhawkers.
Favre looked confused against the 49ers 3-4, and I think it’s safe to say our secondary is better then theirs. Leroy Butler also said in a recent article Favre struggles against cover 2 zones, and zone blitzes. That’s pretty much exactly what Capers system is. Favre easily could throw 2-3 picks this game or he could throw none.
The Vikes have also given up a punt return TD this year. Blackmon is a great returner, who says he couldn’t break one again?
It will all just come down to our oline. We need to pass the ball but in order to do that Rodgers needs time. If he gets it I like our chances. I’ll take Driver and Jennings against Winfield and Griffin any day of the week. But of course the catch is we need time. I think our oline will struggle a lot against the Vikes but I hope we do some things to try and neutralize their pass rush.
It will also come down to us stopping their run game. And lets just be honest, we probably won’t be able to. But we didn’t stop the run against them in both our matchups last year and we still won 1 game and lost the other by 1.
by packallday555 on Oct 1, 2009 2:37 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Favre against Dom Capers
Just a thought—I heard an interesting stat today on sports radio out of Green Bay that BF is 6-0 against Capers. He cant be that awful bad against his type of D
by stratoscaster on Oct 1, 2009 7:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good point with a big but...
What teams did he go 6-0 against? I know the Jets lost the first game they played the Patriots last season and Capers led their secondary. Capers was a bad head coach so I could see the Packers beating some Capers led teams most definitely. I could be wrong but a lot has been made lately about Favre being bad against 3-4 teams that use a lot of zone blitzes. I tried to look up some stats but couldn’t find much of anything.
by GGGamer on Oct 1, 2009 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh
I’m not trying to say he is awful against that type of defense. There has just been a lot said about how if there is any defense Favre struggles against it is the cover 2 zone and zone blitzes. Of course we all know what Favre was able to do in his career and I’m sure he faced many, many of those 2 defenses. I just have heard a lot about it and saw him struggle against the 49er 3-4.
by packallday555 on Oct 1, 2009 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
good point about Dre Bly INT
Another example is what would have happened if the Bears D didn’t slip up on that 50 yard td to win the game for the pakcers? One possibility is that the packers could have lost the game, with a 1-2 record.
by dsludo on Oct 1, 2009 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes sir
That is another one. Really you can look at every game and there is likely a play in there that you can say what if this or what if that but the bottom line is that what if did or did not happen.
by packallday555 on Oct 1, 2009 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
or this one...
What would have happened if Favre had NOT completed that pass to Lewis or if the 49ers WOULD HAVE picked off the previous drive. The game operates in REALITY. Those plays DID happen so who cares about if they didn’t. You can just about 75% of the games one or two plays where you could play this kind of game.
What if the Packers weren’t called for a false start at the end of the Bengals game, they could be 3-0 too!
by TrevorR on Oct 2, 2009 3:14 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To Brandon and Mitchell_M
I don’t want to go through the hassle of emailing you (or flagging all of his posts) so if and hopefully when you read this I would like to forge a complaint against ktenreb. The guy harrasses me just about every single post and he always has to comment me and call me a Favre hater and this and that. He’s even stooped to calling my friend and I John Hinkley Jr., you know the Reagan and Jodie Foster nut case.
I’m here to talk to reasonable fans about the Packers and I’m absolutely done with being harrassed every time I come on here so could one of you please help me resolve this situation. If we could meet face to face this would be an entirely different situation but the guy sits back on his computer and talks nonsense because he can so I would like it resolved asap. Thank You
by GGGamer on Oct 1, 2009 3:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm right here
Go ahead and read the posts. They all pertain to the Packers and express opinions that don’t agree with GGGarner’s and FavreSucks’ opinions. For that, he now wants me censored.
Wow.
by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 4:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
First of all its GGGamer not Garner. Secondly I don’t want you censored for expressing opinions on the Packers and other NFL topics but you don’t need to be making political comments and harrassing other posters. No one is against you making “Packer points” it the constant childish attacks that you keep coming out with. Calling me and my buddy John Hinkley and talking crap about Republicans is not expressing your opinion on the Packers and it isn’t just joking anymore when you say something almost every post and literally every day.
by GGGamer on Oct 1, 2009 4:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
You are FavreSucks, aren't you?
The “political comment” as you call it was to the effect that your buddy (alter ego?) FavreSucks utilized the rhetorical device of attacking a strawman, like a lot of polticians do (especially Republicans). It’s not a bad thing, it’s just a rhetorical device, that’s all. For trained rhetoricians, like me, it’s easy to see.
As for calling you “Hinckley,” that was in response to one of your (er, I mean “FavreSucks’”) unprovoked diatribes against Brett Favre. His (your?) name gives away his bias; it almost seems unhealthy. But I apologize for worrying out loud whether you (er, I mean “FavreSucks”) intended harm to Mr. Favre.
But I’ve had enough of you and your harassment (calling me out publicly, hoping to meet me “face to face,” name calling, advocating that I be censored, etc.). If the moderators want to boot me, so be it. Note that I do NOT advocate that they boot you, but instead I join in FavreSucks’ request that they allow him to change his stupid name! But henceforth, I shall ignore your taunts and threats. I will not, however, refrain from pointing out when your opinions and facts are wrong.
by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 4:36 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
There You Go SB Nation Staff
You show your true colors all right there in the post. Actually FavreSucks is my good friend from college who just moved up here to the Milwaukee area and I had been reading acme so I signed him up and then started posting myself.
How am I harrassing you? I’m done with the war of words. The staff will handle this because you obvioulsy have problems.
by GGGamer on Oct 1, 2009 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You signed him up?
So it was you who came up with the name “FavreSucks”?
MM is going to have to utilize rollouts this week, away from Allen. This limits Rodgers’ options, of course, but he has a strong enough arm to still utilize the whole half of the field still available to him. He also needs to throw the ball away if he has nothing available — this has been a significant factor in the 12 sacks the team has given up. I think it’s also time for Finley to step up. I wouldn’t mind seeing the Packers try to run the ball over the right side, behind Sitton and at Pat Williams, to see if he is really up for a challenge from a young, strong, drive-blocking guard.
Defensively — I am afraid that the Vikings just might be settling into a rhythm. Favre didn’t attend most of training camp, so it’s no surprise that Childress (who is not as stupid/awful/ignorant as a lot of posters on this blog have claimed without ever having met the man) used a simple offense for the first few games of the season. I worry that he’s been playing possum because the early games were against relatively weak opponents and there is this Adrian Pederson guy who is fully capable of supplying a lot of offense all by himself. It wouldn’t surprise me if Childress and Favre open it up against the Packers. The key will be getting pressure on Favre. Aaron Kampman will need to be huge in this game.
by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I appreciate the Packer commentary finally
But it’s a little late for that at this point. And just to clarify, since you made it sound like I was speaking of violence when I said face to face, I was saying if this was a discussion in person you would not be calling people Hinkley and making comments in a belligerent way.
by GGGamer on Oct 1, 2009 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
To Brandon and Mitchell_M
I don’t want to go through the hassle of emailing you (or flagging all of his posts) so if and hopefully when you read this I would like to forge [actually, I would like to “file” or “make”] a complaint against GGGarner. The guy harrasses me just about every single post and he always has to comment me [not sure what I am trying to express here] and call me a Thompson hater and this and that [and also some of the other!]. He’s even stooped to calling my friend and I [I think it’s supposed to be “me”] John Hinkley Jr., you know the Reagan and Jodie Foster nut case.
I’m here to talk to reasonable fans [I meant to talk “to” reasonable fans] about the Packers and I’m absolutely done with being harrassed every time I come on here so could one of you please help me resolve this situation. If we could meet face to face this would be an entirely different situation but the guy sits back on his computer and talks nonsense [one ‘types’ or ’blogs or “writes” on a computer] because he can [is that why I do it? Because I can?] so I would like it resolved asap. Thank You
by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 5:51 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This Will Be My Final Post On This Subject
As you can see Brandon and Mitchell, ktenreb does this same thing over and over again. His whole goal is to encite a fight by calling me Garner, Hinkley, ect. The guy basically copy and pasted my entire post just to continue an argument. I would hope for the validity and peacefulness of acmepackingcompany that he would be blocked from posting here anymore. This is seriously harrassment and it went over board yesterday.
by GGGamer on Oct 1, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
get a room
You both need to go away. Just leave each other alone or you are both GROUNDED!
by TrevorR on Oct 2, 2009 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
The best a "trained rhetorician" could come up with is this cut and paste bs?
You sound like a second grader parroting everything he says. Maybe time to get a refund from your Rhetoric trainers?
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Oct 1, 2009 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh no, I can do a lot better
and I frequently do. I just need a decent foil, preferably one who understands grammar and has a respectable vocabulary (if you read what I wrote, I tried to point out the mistakes in the whining little post from GGGarner). Care to audition?
Congratulations to your Wolverines, by the way. They beat my team earlier this year.
by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 9:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No, thats for a different blue - Cubs.
I’m a Notre Dame Fan, so I know the feeling.
Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?
by BleedsbluinMI on Oct 2, 2009 7:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Cubs fan on a Packers Blog?
???
I’m a Notre Dame grad.
by ktenreb on Oct 2, 2009 8:11 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm a Cubs fan
Also a HARD CORE Packers fan.
Guess what, troll..
FAVRE SUCKS!
by PackaCracka on Oct 2, 2009 9:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It all comes down to the big guys
Will the Packers o-line be able to hold off the Vikings d-line long enough for Aaron Rodgers to find his receivers? I know the importance of running the ball. Yet Rodgers will need to throw the ball at various points during the game. When he does, he will either be punished by a tough Vikings defensive unit or the Packers will find a way to give him some time. In all likelihood, this will be the biggest test for the Packers this year.
(On the other side, the old man, Brett Favre, is apparently suffering from some sort of foot injury. He was at least limited in practice if he practiced at all. I do not know the severity of his injury, but it might be something to keep an eye on.)
Another concern is the Packers inability to stop the run. If Adrian Peterson has a huge day, then Brett Favre may not have to throw much at all. That will limit his throws into the Packers secondary and lessen the chances of any turnovers. The Packers best bet is to blitz, blitz and blitz some more. In the past Favre would have eaten up such a defensive game plan. But he might not be quite as comfortable with his receivers yet. Each week gets him that much more comfortable as evidenced by his late game heroics against the 49ers. If he is allowed to get into any sort of groove, then blitzing should be abandoned.
The Vikings pose a real threat to the Packers in the NFC North. The Bears do as well. Of course, right now all attention is on Monday night in Minnesota. I fear the worst and hope for the best. Yet I do not see any way that o-line can improve or the run defense can improve in time to save the Packers from Favre breaking another record… becoming the first QB to beat all 32 NFL teams.
by starmark on Oct 1, 2009 5:35 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Brett Favre has beaten the Packers over 100 times
Or if Peterson's "troublesome" back gives out. Because he's, you know, carrying the team. And some of those guys are heavy.
Mitchell M
by blackoutsox on Oct 1, 2009 6:35 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
i like the blitz scheme
but it has to be run blitzes. We can not blitz hoping they are going to pass, if we do AP will have cutback lanes and easy walks to the the endzone. If we bring run blitzes i.e. overloading the middle, sending both OLB and having the DL crash in we should be able to stop AP and force Favre to throw. If we shut down/ limit AP i like our chances. I dont think Brett himself can beat our secondary.
by bizzle4 on Oct 2, 2009 12:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jeez...
… I wish I had a fast forward button to get to the point in the future where every damn thread isn’t a discussion of Brett Favre.
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 1, 2009 9:04 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Well I expected it
It’s hard to avoid it this week.
by Brandon on Oct 1, 2009 11:42 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hear hear
It would be terrific if the Favre haters would focus on the Packers of 2009.
by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 9:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
And
All the Favre lovers would focus on the Packers of 2009. (And this comment isn’t directed towards you)
by packallday555 on Oct 1, 2009 11:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
No one's been warned or banned
Mitchell asked the flame war to end yesterday. I’ve signed on for a truce too.
by Brandon on Oct 1, 2009 11:51 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
that's where you're wrong
there have been several people that have taken things too far. ktenreb, you’re one of them. The commenter formerly known as FavreSucks is one of them. GGGamer is one of them. There’s at least a dozen more people, all equally at fault. Whether you like it or not, you’re involved with it, so you bear some of the responsibility.
EVERYONE in this community has a responsibility to be civil to one another. The best part about this site has been the high level of intelligence and integrity from the commentariat. This week, that reputation has taken a hit. Part of that is the intense rivalry between GB and MIN, part of that is the bad blood over the Favre Saga, and part is that everyone’s gotten so comfortable they feel as if they don’t need to follow the unwritten rules of the site. That needs to end now, and everyone shares an equal part of the blame for letting it go on. I’d much rather you sort it out on your own so we can be on our merry way. However, if you can’t police yourselves, then we have to do it for you, and quite frankly, neither Brandon nor I need the headache.
I’m not looking for a public apology or for anyone to “hug it out, bitch”. But you guys need to cut the crap ASAP.
"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."
by Mitchell_M on Oct 3, 2009 8:08 AM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
Fair enough
I will do my best to focus on football and supporting my positions with civil language. GGGarner and FavreSucks — you guys agree?
by ktenreb on Oct 3, 2009 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Definitely
I’ve been trying to be civil for awhile now but it’s a little bit difficult when every post I submit is met with a personal attack (where other poster have even come to my defense). I have been out of line in a lot of my replies to you, ktenreb, but looking back at the comments I can see that I wasn’t the instigator initially. But none of that matters now. I came on here to talk Packers and that’s all I ever wanted to do.
I tried several times to make you stop and I guess it took a tongue lashing from Mitchell to make it happen. Were both at fault and I’m just glad now that I don’t have to defend personal attacks everytime I come on here now. I signed the truce a few days ago but it kept on coming from you so hopefully this truce actually means something. Let’s get back to the Packers.
Last thing though. Do you keep calling me Garner purposely to get under my skin or do you really not realize my name is Gamer?
by GGGamer on Oct 3, 2009 11:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're the Commentariat?
Does that make us communists?
by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Oct 4, 2009 6:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bull*&%$!!
Last time I checked, Defense and special teams play are also a part of a football game. Your assertion that “the game wouldn’t have been that close” is ludicrous! This is the NFC North! We play defense we try hard on special teams! The defense will continue to get after Favre, probably moreso, because now, they’ll get to hit No. 4!! I hope they play smear the queer with him on Monday and I hope they put him out of football when the Viqueers come to Lambeau! I resent him for being unable to step away gracefully and revealing that all he is is an old attention whore! I also resent him for being sneaky about the whole damn thing! You want to play, you go to camp. I think Childress has a serious credibility problem, how can his players believe anything he says?
by biggun33 on Oct 2, 2009 3:57 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Acme Packing Company
Related FanShots on Acme Packing Company
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
