Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: News And Other Updates Leading Up To Pats-Giants

Previewing Cincinnati's Visit To Lambeau

It may have been ugly, but our beloved Packers started off the season the right way with a thrilling comeback against Chicago, 21-15.  Whether you classify it as two great defensive performances or two awful offensive ones, the only important thing is that Green Bay is 1-0 in the division and tied with Minnesota for the NFC North. 

This week, Green Bay has a significantly less imposing challenge in the Cincinnati Bengals.  Do not take this statement as a sign of arrogance, because Cincinnati is still a dangerous team with weapons on offense and talented defenders; dangerous enough to exploit the weaknesses Green Bay exhibited on Sunday night.

Cincinnati is 0-1 after losing on a comically fluky 87 yard TD from Kyle Orton to Brandon Marshall Leon Hall Brandon Stokely.  They kept Denver in check for most of the game, and Carson Palmer guided the offense on a 11-play drive ending with Cedric Benson scoring the go-ahead TD with 38 seconds left.  They were one ill-tipped pass away from winning, and I'd bet they feel that they have something to prove this week.

While they still have players with character issues, terrible luck, and their less-than-stellar reputation to shake off, these Bengals are no pushovers.  Let's look at the main matchups for Week 2.

Star-divide

CIN rushing vs. GB defense: Cedric Benson is infamous for two things: vastly underperforming his fourth-overall draft status, and the second-most notorious boating incident in the NFC North's recent history.  But all that aside, he is starting out on a tenuous path to redemption with the Bengals.  After coming away from his legal troubles unscathed, the Bengals signed him in Week 5 of 2008 after DeDe Dorsey went on I.R.  He was eventually promoted to starter, and helped propel the Bengals to a 3-0 finish behind his 423 all-purpose yards.  Benson continued to display promise against Denver with 108 all-purpose yards and a 1-yard score.

At 5'11", 225 lbs, Benson uses his size to push his way through running lanes.  He is also agile enough to prevent defenders from getting a clean look at him.  His speed is above-average at best, but he's refined enough between the tackles to eat up yards at a respectable pace.  Backing up Benson is Brian Leonard, a former draftee of St. Louis (and a proud Rutgers product).  Leonard is not as strong as Benson, but he is by far a better athlete.

Up front, Cincinnati boasts a starting line comprised of players that I have never heard of (from left to right: Anthony Collins, 6'5", 315;  Bobbie Williams, 6'4", 345; Kyle Cook, 6'3", 312; Evan Mathis, 6'5", 295; Andrew Whitworth, 6'7", 335).  Whitworth and Williams are the unit's best players; the other three have very little scouting information at all.  However, a minor X-factor here is the recent reactivation of rookie Andre Smith, who I assure you I have never heard ofEverPeriod.  Will he play after holding out for most of training camp, promptly breaking his foot after signing the deal, and getting added to the roster today?  I doubt it; his conditioning is nowhere near where it should be. 

As for Green Bay's defense, we got a good look at what the 3-4 can do to corrall a well above-average RB like Matt Forte (55 yards on 25 carries).  Green Bay only gave up 86 yards rushing as a whole, including 5 stops behind the line.  While they certainly won't maintain the outstanding 2.8 ypc allowed all season, the run defense seems to be off to a good start.  Johnny Jolly, Cullen Jenkins, and Ryan Pickett were constantly disrupting the offensive line, the linebacker rotation worked like a charm, and B.J. Raji should be able to play at least a dozen snaps. 

Advantage: Green Bay.  There's simply too many ways for the Packers to plug running lanes against Cincinnati's lackluster offensive line.

CIN passing vs. GB defense: Carson Palmer really hasn't been the same ever since Kimo von Oelhoffen accidentally shredded his knee in 2005.  While he made a full recovery and has been starting since 2006, his mobility (which was already suspect) took a nosedive.  If he gets time in the pocket, Palmer can make any throw to any receiver at any time.  He is outstanding at reading coverages, going through progressions, looking off safeties, and following through on throws.  But the minute the pocket collapses, Palmer gets himself into trouble.  This was evident in the Denver game, as Palmer was sacked 3 times, losing 26 yards, and threw two interceptions in the game.  He managed to pull the team together for what could have been a winning drive, showing that he certainly has the ability to get it done.  But if he doesn't look like the second coming of Drew Bledsoe, I don't know what does.

At receiver, the Bengals took a hit when T.J. Houshmandzadeh chased the money all the way to Seattle.  They replaced him with the slightly underrated Laveranues Coles, and they still have Chris Henry and Chad Johnson Ochocinco.  They also added Chase Coffman in the draft, who will be a decent receiving option at TE.  Cedric Benson is able to create out of the backfield as well.

The Green Bay pass rush made life hell for Jay Cutler, forcing 4 interceptions, several more incompletions, 2 sacks, and 9 QB hits.  However, Cutler was still able to find Earl Bennett, Desmond Clark, and Devin Hester for some nice completions (including Hester's TD).  If Nick Collins is struggling with injury, as he was for a few series, the defense immediately becomes more passive and conservative in its playcalling.  Thankfully, Collins was afflicted with cramps, which should not persist.  Atari Bigby has a slightly more serious issue to deal with, but he's not exactly an adept coverage safety.

Advantage: Push.  Green Bay has the talent to shut down opposing offenses, but Carson Palmer is just too good and has too many options.  If the Bengals' offensive line falters, then this swings in Green Bay's favor by a wide margin.

GB rushing vs. CIN defense: On the one hand, Ryan Grant is healthy, the offensive line has a group of five established starters, and the oft-ineffective zone blocking scheme has been scaled back in favor of a more useful man-up scheme.  While they certainly didn't blow anyone away with their run game, Grant exceeded my expectations with 61 yards on 16 carries, including a few 10+ yarders (one of which was called back by holding).  Allen Barbre, for all his pass blocking struggles, actually shines as a run blocker, and the decision to start Jason Spitz over Scott Wells has proved to give the team more pop between the tackles.

On the other hand, the Cincinnati defense kept the Denver Broncos (usually a great running team) to 75 yards with no attempt going for more than 14 yards.  The recent additions of Rey Maualuga and Roy Williams, combined with Keith Rivers' return from injury, have turned the Bengal defense into much more than just a paper tiger (lol, pun).  Granted, the main reason the Broncos were so inept at rushing the ball was because Cincinnati was stacking 8 men in the box all day long, and Kyle Orton's deep ball is so erratic he literally needs help from opposing cornerbacks to complete a long throw.

Advantage: Push.  If Cincinnati puts 8 men in the box, then they'll keep Green Bay under 100 yards rushing.  But that would probably be a stupid thing to do, because...

GB passing vs. CIN defense: Leon Hall and Jonathan Joseph are good coverage corners.  Not great, but good.  Chris Crocker is solid if unspectacular in pass coverage.  But there's a weak link in the Bengals' secondary.  A huge weak link.  Two words: Roy.  Williams.  Roy L. Williams, to be exact, but the only thing the middle initial does is differentiate him from Roy E. Williams, because it sure doesn't help him cover receivers. 

Don't get me wrong, Williams is excellent in run support.  Even Troy Polamalu isn't as adept at breaking through blocks and making tackles near or behind the line of scrimmage.  But he's awful in pass coverage.  How bad?  He needs to regularly be subbed out for Chinedum Ndukwe on passing downs.  He reportedly lost nearly 25 pounds in the offseason to help improve his speed and quickness, but I don't think any amount of weight loss can make up for the massive amount of suck that has cursed Williams ever since he came into the league.  I cannot wait for one of our receivers to be matched up with him on a deep route.

Their pass rush is better than advertised.  Antwan Odom managed 2 sacks on Kyle Orton, with Jonathan Fanene adding another.  This group isn't well known for their pressure, but they're not exactly starved for talent either; Tank Johnson and Dhani Jones are both effective at getting to the quarterback.  It helps that they drafted Michael Johnson in the third round, a DE out of Texas Georgia Tech that Brandon may have been pining for with Green Bay's second round pick.

Green Bay struggled mightily with Chicago's pass rush, which kept them from getting anything going in the passing game until the end of the fourth quarter.  Four sacks and several additional hits kept Aaron Rodgers out of his rhythm, and both Donald Driver and Jordy Nelson were struggling with drops.   However, Rodgers was able to avoid any costly mistakes (discounting the safety, which was partly his fault) and showed off decent escapability when he had an opening.  He made the throws he needed to make, and it came together at the end.  I expect his deep ball to be much improved by Sunday.

Advantage: Green Bay.  Antwan Odom is no Adewale Ogunleye, and Rodgers and company (should have) learned from his struggles against Chicago.  If Cincinnati tries to stack 8 in the box, expect Rodgers' deep ball to be much better calibrated than in the opener.

Preliminary verdict: I'm not one for predictions, so I won't waste your time with picking a winner and an arbitrary final score.  I can say that Green Bay matches up very well with the Bengals and, if they can force Carson Palmer into mistakes (a tall order), contain Chad Ochocinco and Cedric Benson (a slightly shorter order), and take advantage of openings in the defense (a much more reasonable expectation), the Packers are in good shape to take the win.

Poll
What outcome do you see for Week 2 vs. Cincinnatti?
Big GB win.
954 votes
Close GB win.
373 votes
Too close to call.
20 votes
Close CIN win.
102 votes
Big CIN win.
47 votes
Ochocinco will pull a stunt.
67 votes

1563 votes | Poll has closed

Comment 82 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Spot on...

I don’t see how Cincy makes this one a game. Denver was a siv against the run last year and Benson averaged what, maybe 4 yds a carry. I can’t see him doing much of ANYTHING against this swarming D. I think Cincy is going to have another tough week. In fact, I even think Williams against Henry favors us and on most teams I would take Henry. This game should be a convincing win to make people start talking about this team again…

by TrevorR on Sep 15, 2009 2:43 PM CDT reply actions  

....Almost

Michael Johnson went to Georgia Tech.

by Wade V on Sep 17, 2009 5:12 AM CDT up reply actions  

Packer Haiku

Pack by 9 pointspread
Influenced by pre-season
Ignoring Bear game?
http://www.PackerHaiku.com

Clark Osborn - PackerHaiku.com | FavreHaiku.com | BadgerHaiku.com

by PackerHaiku on Sep 15, 2009 2:57 PM CDT reply actions  

Gregg Easterbrook, is that you?

"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."

by Mitchell Maurer on Sep 15, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

No.

If it was, the haiku would be accompanied by a picture of a cheerleader.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 15, 2009 6:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

good point

Man, I used to love Easterbrook. But his column is more and more recycled each week.

"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."

by Mitchell Maurer on Sep 15, 2009 7:04 PM CDT up reply actions  

Nice

"It ain't over till it's over." - Yogi Berra

by 49er16 on Sep 15, 2009 3:40 PM CDT up reply actions  

No Chance

The only way the Bengals can win this game is if Rodgers gets hurt in the first quarter (fingers crossed that doesn’t happen). The Packers have as good a matchup against Cincy as they will have all year (except maybe with the Rams).

I expect this to look like one of the pre-season blow outs the Pack gave out last month.

by FavreSucks on Sep 15, 2009 4:41 PM CDT reply actions  

No Chance?

I can understand you are just thinking the name Cincinnati Bengals and thinking easy win, but I wouldn’t associate them with the Rams, Lions, Browns, Raiders etc. They have good players at every spot except for OL. I would say these teams have similar talent at every position except OL and Dbacks edge to GB. Also coaching edge to GB. I’d look for a game into the 4th quarter and the Packers win by 3 to 7, not a blowout.

by gpcu02 on Sep 17, 2009 2:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

Could easily be a close game

I am a bored Vikings fan and Daily Norseman has nothing today. I’ll let that out in the open.

Cincinatti’s defense was better than Chicago’s last season (shockingly). They have under rated talent and were one fluke TD away from holding the Broncos to 6 points. The Broncos are without their star WR and incredibly talented Cutler (sarcasm) but that was still one of the better offenses last season with some decent players and it was shut down completely by the Bengals. My point being that the Bengals may actually present more of a challenge to GB’s offense than the Bears did.

If Green Bay’s offensive unit struggles against Cincinnatti, a similarly talented unit, the way it struggled against Chicago this game could easily go either way. Green Bay’s scoring consisted of a 1 yard touchdown drive set up by a terrible Cutler throw and the wide open bomb at the end of the game. They could have easily lost.

Not trying to hate on Green Bay here but they just didn’t look very good last night. They didn’t look like a team that couldn’t possibly lose to the Bengals at home a week later.

But again try to keep in mind I am a non Green Bay fan, mild hater, and most of all someone who puts exactly zero stock into how a team looks in preseason so we probably saw last night’s game from different vantage points.

by Sand0 on Sep 15, 2009 5:54 PM CDT reply actions  

Wow!

TWO rational, well-mannered Vikings fans posting on APC in one day! This is certainly a trend worth continuing.

You’re absolutely right in your observations. Part of the reason I was so pessimistic during the fourth quarter. But, hey, I’ve got more faith in the Pack than you do, and that’s always nice to have.

"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."

by Mitchell Maurer on Sep 15, 2009 6:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

No, he's not right.

He’s assuming zero adjustments by GB. He’s assuming a less talented from 7 will cause the same amount of havoc as Chicago’s group did. He’s suggesting that the Broncos are an exceptional offensive team when they’re not, and he’s suggesting that since the Bengals shut them down they can shut down the Packers too. He’s ignoring the fact that the Packers had significant opportunities to blow out the Bears and they failed to do so not because the Bears prevented them from doing so, but because the Packers were out of sorts, OR he’s assuming that the timing problems on offense will persist when there’s evidence to suggest they won’t. And he’s assuming that the Bengals offense, which struggled against the Broncos, will succeed against the Packers in spite of the lack of film on their 3-4 and the Packers superior talent to the Broncos on the corners (and perhaps elsewhere).

The reality is that the Broncos are a team in turmoil with players who didn’t believe in their coach going into that game. They essentially had no running game and their most talented RB (Moreno) was limited by injury. Marshall MIGHT be as good as Jennings when he’s enganged and committed, bur right now he’s neither, and the rest of the Broncos receiving corps were clearly affected by the fact that Marshall was going through the motions and still suffering the after-effects of his layoff. And Aaron Rodgers is NOT Kyle Orton.

No one said the Packers can’t lose to the Bengals (except for the Viking fan making a straw argument for us that he could easily knock down). Any team can lose to any other in the NFL because from top to bottom the talent differentials are frequently pretty narrow. But I’m convinced that if the Packers played the Bengals 10 times right now, they’d win 7, because any other conclusion match the evidence in hand.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 15, 2009 6:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

Argh.

The last sentence should read "because any other conclusion DOESN’T match the evidence in hand.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 15, 2009 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions  

Allow me to retort

In the last paragraph you say nobody says the Packers can’t lose. I was referring to posters above mine. Sorry of some of them were haters being sarcastic I missed it. I was also referring to the 3 cheeseheads in minneapolis I work with that are convinced their team will dominate constantly. They actually think they dominated the Bears outside of some rustiness.

I agree with the win 7 out of 10 games. That is their chance this weekend in my opinion as well. That would indicate a team favored but not overwhelmingly. I predict the score will be 20-13 or thereabouts.

I give the Vikings a 9.5 out of 10 to win this one.

by Sand0 on Sep 15, 2009 7:30 PM CDT up reply actions  

so 9 wins and 1 tie?

I didn’t know they had ties!

"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."

by Mitchell Maurer on Sep 15, 2009 7:35 PM CDT up reply actions  

They do actually have ties

unless the rules have changed in the last couple of years.. I think it was philly and atlanta had a tie? not sure but after i believe 2 or 3 OTs it is a tie..

But Viking fan 9.5 out of 10 don’t you think that is a little steep for a team that lost the first half against the Browns? Luckily for you AP is machine and stepped it up in the second half of that game. Otherwise, IMO, the browns were giving you all they had in the first half and left with a 13-10 lead.

by bizzle4 on Sep 15, 2009 7:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

95% chance of winning is not too high

The Lions have lost almost 20 straight many to teams inferior to the Vikings while the Vikings have absolutely dominated the Lions over the last 7 years. So no I don’t think it is too high. Not until the Lions can win a game at least.

As for the Vikings “losing the first half to the browns” that is just sort of a retarded and meaningless statement. It was a blowout victory. Yes the Vikings offense started slow and they gave up a return TD to Cribbs but the score was 34-13 when the Browns started their late garbage TD drive. Think about this. The Vikings offense dropped all 34 points on them while only attempting 4 passes more than 5 yards in the air down field. Believe me when I say that this offense isn’t even getting started.

And why is it that Packers fans separate AP from the rest of the team. It is always like “your team sucked but luckily AP is amazing”. Some of you guys are so delusional. You want to be able to enjoy and admire AP like every other NFL fan yet you still need to convince yourselves inside that the Vikings are total suckage.

by Sand0 on Sep 15, 2009 9:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

Dominated the Lions?

Didn’t the Vikings have two close games with them last year? Didn’t they also almost lose if not for a terrible offensive interference call on Johnson?

Anyways, I’m not gonna argue about the Vikings/Lions because this is the Packers site, go back to Norseman to discuss that.

by Charlie Kelly on Sep 15, 2009 9:57 PM CDT up reply actions  

Dominated the Lions

They’ve had many close games with the Lions but I believe have only lost to them once in 7 years, which is what I consider dominate. And yes, I’ll leave your site now though I enjoy the debates.

by Sand0 on Sep 16, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

first off sorry

I did not realize you were talking about the Lions. I thought you were giving your team a 95% chance to beat Cincy.

But to say my comment about you geting beat in the first half is retarded is completely juvenile by you. Only attempting 4 passes over 5 yards well that has just as much upside as it does down. You kept a 40year old that still doesnt know the system/ team all the way under control. You give him many opportunities to throw the deep ball (which is not as good as it used to be) your giving him a higher risk of being Mr. INT.

Your stellar run D gave up a 5.2 ypc ave to Jamal lewis. He only had 57 yards but 11 carries. Mostly due to faling behind in the 2nd half.

I was not stating your team sucks..However just saying you guys do need work just like we need work. And AP well he is amazing

by bizzle4 on Sep 15, 2009 10:02 PM CDT up reply actions  

Porous run D?

They had like three good runs and Lewis was knocked out by a D back at the sideline at the end of their last good one which had a lot to do with him no longer being a factor. Aside from the garbage TD their O scored 6 points all game. D was fine.

by Sand0 on Sep 16, 2009 1:47 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don’t think run defense has anything to worry about but they did give up 70 yards to the running challenged Browns. Lewis averaging 5+ yards a carry. Regardless of what you want to say about it, he had some succes vs. you guys.

by packallday555 on Sep 16, 2009 10:59 PM CDT up reply actions  

too busy

containing the mighty Quinn.

by Squatbulk on Sep 18, 2009 7:33 AM CDT up reply actions  

Haha mighty???

Not exactly the word choice I would use to describe Quinn…

by packallday555 on Sep 19, 2009 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions  

One thing I will respond to

And why is it that Packers fans separate AP from the rest of the team. It is always like "your team sucked but luckily AP is amazing". Some of you guys are so delusional. You want to be able to enjoy and admire AP like every other NFL fan yet you still need to convince yourselves inside that the Vikings are total suckage.

Did you even watch the game? Favre was the definition of average (You couldn’t have had Sage or Tjack do that? Hmmm, I wonder if this whole Favre deal was just a ploy to sell tickets) AP had 180 yards and 3 TDs so obviously he was a majority of the offense. I’ll give credit where credit is due, Minnesota has a great offensive line, a great defensive line, a great cornerback in Winfield, and the best player in the league in Peterson, but I’m not jumping on their Superbowl contender bandwagon yet.

by Charlie Kelly on Sep 15, 2009 10:06 PM CDT up reply actions  

I thought the same thing

I watched the 2nd quarter as Favre threw check down after check down. He did throw one in the end zone, but WR Sidney Rice ran to the wrong corner (or maybe Brett threw to the wrong one). He didn’t do anything any of their other QBs could do. But they were playing the Browns and obviously didn’t need him forcing anything down the field.

by Brandon on Sep 15, 2009 11:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

Ya

Saw a stat on ESPN that Favre only threw like 4-5 passes that traveled more then 5 yards in the air.

by packallday555 on Sep 16, 2009 10:38 AM CDT up reply actions  

You don't realize

how bad our QB play has been. Sure it doens’t look like much when Favre goes through three reads and then quickly zips a precise bullet to the RB in the flat in stride but I can tell you first hand that T Jack can’t do that. Favre can make the easy routine throws and when the time comes we all know he can fire one downfield as well. I can’t expect you to understand but having watched the last 50 Vikings games under Childress there was something different about the way that O played.

by Sand0 on Sep 16, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions  

Neither did Donovan

The glass is more than half-full.

by NorthStarr on Sep 15, 2009 11:43 PM CDT up reply actions  

You don't think a .700 winning percentage is dominant?

If the Packers win, they’ll beat the spread in my opinion. If it’s 20-13 it’s one of the outside chances that Cincy wins the game. The Packers are a significantly better team than the Bengals at at least 5 positions and I don’t think they’re worse than the Bengals anywhere. If the Packers lose, they’ll have beaten themselves, just like they nearly did against Chicago. The Bengals need some luck to stay in the game, and that’s the basis for the 7 out of 10 wins for GB, which I base on the Packers relative youth rather than their relative talent level to Cincy.

The Packers would win 9+ out of 10 against Detroit too, as would virtually any other team (except Oakland and St. Louis) early this year.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 15, 2009 7:52 PM CDT up reply actions  

So a serious question

Do you believe the Packers are as good as the Vikings today? Based on last season, offseason “acquisition”, week 1, and obviously most importantly of all like always preseason. Are they as good? Better?

by Sand0 on Sep 15, 2009 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

I don't know.

The best player on both teams is clearly AP. Usually the team with the best player is the better of the two teams under comparison. A position by position analysis gives GB the advantage (in my opinion) at QB, WR1, 2 and 3 (apologies to Harvin), Center, CB, S, and TE (though that’s close in part because the two teams ask their players to do different things). MN has the advantage at RB, LG, RG, and probably both OT positions (apologies to Clifton), the DT position (comparison is tough there because of the 4-3 vs. 3-4) and one of the DE spots. Last year I would have said that Minny’s LBs were better than GB’s, but I’m not so sure anymore. GB’s certainly deeper at the position and the system change seems to suit a couple of LBs who were marginal in the 4-3 (Chillar, and maybe Hawk). I think the LBs are a wash. The only downside from the 3-4 switch on a personnell basis is Kampman, who looked pretty mediocre rushing from a standing position on Sunday. My personal opinion is that MN is better at both PK and P as well.

By sheer number of positions where they have better talent, it looks like Minnesota’s better, but that’s not how the game is played, of course. Is the question which team will win their games against each other? Or which team will fare better over the course of the 16 week season? The NFL is a matchup league and sometimes that means the team with more talent loses to the team with less talent. The truth is that GB’s matchups with Minnesota are pretty good, in my opinion. If GB gets its pass protection squared away by the time they play, I like GB’s chances against Minnesota. You guys play the run very well, but your secondary is bad and teams that can protect their QB and field 3 quality WRs are going to tear it up.

GB is, however, better at 2 of the most important positions on the field: QB and CB. You can’t win without quality CB play unless your DL is constantly in the backfield. Rodgers is a superior QB to Favre at this point of their careers. That’s not sour grapes. It’s just true. Rodgers proved it last year and even last week. There’s no way that Favre comes out of a similar game to the one Rodgers went through without chucking a pick or two. Their RT was a revolving door and you could see Rodgers getting skittish and less accurate. Despite that, he never really came close to putting one in a defender’s hand, with the possible exception of a tipped pass in the fist quater. Favre isn’t capable of that anymore when he’s under pressure, as he was in the fist half against Cleveland. We all know, I think, that if Favre had been asked to win that game for you, he would have thrown a couple of picks and you very well might have lost.

So in the end, in their head to head games, it’s a question of which team can neutralize the other’s best player, and with GB’s OL, it’s probably a safe bet that MN will have an easier time getting to Rodgers than GB will shut down AP, but if you ask Favre to throw more than 25 passes or go downfield against GB’s secondary, they’re going to pick him off a couple of times. My guess is they split with each team winning at home.

If the question is whether MN or GB will win more games this season, my guess is it’ll be MN. Even in this era, MN isn’t going to run into many teams with enough depth at WR and good enough pass protection to exploit your major weaknesses. MN runs the ball very well and plays the run well, and that wins games in the regular season. The real test of how good MN will be is when they run into someone who does what they do, most obviously the Ravens. If the Ravens beat MN, you’re probably a 10 win team and GB could match that or beat it this year. If MN manages to beat the Ravens, then looking at the rest of their schedule they could win 12 or more and I doubt GB hits that number this year.

Bottom line is I don’t know which team is better, and you don’t either. I know it’s closer than many MN fans would like to admit. Barring injury, I’m convinced that GB will improve as the season goes on and they get comfortable not only in their new defensive scheme, but in the new man-blocking scheme they’ve implemented in the run game this year. They ran far, far fewer zone runs last week than they have since McCarthy took over and their running game will get better and better as the year goes on.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 15, 2009 11:06 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

We really aren't that far removed from a Packers team that beat the Vikings 34-0

and won the last 5 out of 6 against them. I would say the Vikings have more talent in specific areas (Defensive, Ofensive lines, Runningback) but the Packers are a more well rounded team.

by Charlie Kelly on Sep 16, 2009 5:54 AM CDT up reply actions  

I don't think that the Packers dominated the Bears...

… but I think the opportunity to dominate the Bears was there. The plays were there to be made but GB didn’t take advantage (4 dropped passes from the normally sure-handed Driver and Nelson, two missed deep passes from the normally very accurate Rodgers), which is why I say they nearly beat themselves. If you look at the game, are their plays the Bears could have made but didn’t because they failed to execute? I can’t think of many. Playing the what if game is dangerous and often meaningless, but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with noting that the opportunity was their and incluing that in your calculus of a teams relative strength. With Uhrlacher, the Bears are a better team than the Bengals, and the Packers had the opportunity to blow them out in spite of the fact that they were playing a team that regards them as their arch-rival (Lovie Smith didn’t say in that infamous press conference that he knew how to beat the Vikings, after all), and a team that had been prepping for that specific game for over a month.

The Bengals have a week to prep and less talent on the field. They could win, if GB beats themselves or if luck is on their side, but the better team is in GB.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 15, 2009 8:09 PM CDT up reply actions  

I just don't agree with that way of looking at things

You can’t just look and say “well, if these 4 plays went perfectly our way and everything else stayed the same, we’d have won huge”. As nice as it sounds it just doesn’t work that way. If Cutler played like an average QB in the NFL in that game Green Bay does not win that game.

With that said, hey, Green Bay won on a wide open bomb in the closing minutes and that was fun even for me to watch. If, coulda, yada, just be happy you won and not greedy thinking it should have been by more.

by Sand0 on Sep 15, 2009 10:14 PM CDT up reply actions  

I'm sorry, but that's a load of crap.

It’s a question of tendencies and typical player performance. Rodgers rarely misses open receivers deep and Driver rarely drops passes. A Packer beat writer had Driver with 6 total dops in 2008 and he had two on Sunday. My point is that the opportunity to blow Chicago out was there. GB didn’t get it done, but that doesn’t mean that Rodgers didn’t perform well enough to add about 50yds of passing if it weren’t for the drops and it doesn’t mean that both Driver and Jennings weren’t able to get deep earlier in the game for what coul have been easy TD’s had the passes they were thrown been catchable. It’s about talent an performance evaluation and both demonstrated their superiority on those plays.

As for Cutler, only one of those picks was the product of a poor throw, which was forced by pressure, by the way. The others were exceptional plays on the ball by Packer defenders.

And hey, I AM happy they won. Never said I wasn’t. I’m just trying to refute an obviously biased Packer hating Viking fan who’s trying to diminish their win against a quality division rival that makes a habit of targetting the Packers every year. My question is, if you’re actually convinced of the superiority of the Vikings, why is it that you feel the need to tear GB down instead of talking you team up?

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 15, 2009 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions  

" If Cutler played like an average QB in the NFL in that game Green Bay does not win that game."

But the thing is there was a reason he played poorly, and that reason is because our defense constantly pressure him and had him pretty rattled. It wasn’t like Cutler had all day every play, and just was making accurate throws. He was getting pressured nearly every down, and having to try and escape pressure almost every play. He made some poor decisions, in which he was rushed or hurried. That’s exactly what our defense was intending to do, and they accomplished it.

The same could be said for you guys week 1. Had you played an average NFL team, you probably would have lost your week 1 game. You guys looked horrible in the 1st half, and had Quinn not given you those two gifts (horrible INT, and fumble in which he just dropped with no one within 5 feet of him) the outcome of the game could have been different. Oh and I wouldn’t say your defense “forced” Quinn to make those TOs, like our defense “forced” Cutler to make his. He actually had Edwards wide open on the inside and missed him waaayyyy outside.

I’m not sure who is better at this point to answer one of your earlier questions. I will need to see more of Favre, and the offense and how they progress. Cause right now it doesn’t look any different then the offense of 08’. Of course there is no question Favre is better then Jackson or Gus, so I expect your offense to improve. I think our defense is vastly improved from last year, and that could help us out a bunch. Also getting Raji back from injury will be huge. He has looked like a monster this far, and with him it will make our run defense even stouter. (But keep in mind we were pretty darn good week 1 holding Forte to 55 yards on 25 carries.) Right now, I’ll say your better but by a slim margin.

by packallday555 on Sep 16, 2009 10:52 AM CDT up reply actions  

That's what probably impressed me most by the defensive pressure

that it was without Raji even in, I’m excited to see how they look once he starts playing,

by Charlie Kelly on Sep 16, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions  

Curious

“I was also referring to the 3 cheeseheads in minneapolis I work with that are convinced their team will dominate constantly. They actually think they dominated the Bears outside of some rustiness.”

Who do you think dominated the game? I personally think we easily took the 1st half, no contest. I think they had the 2nd half but depending on what you consider “rustiness” that could have played a part. We had a bunch of penalties that absolutely KILLED us. They stopped 2 big drives we had going, and cost us 2 big 3rd down stops. But again, do you consider penalties “rustiness”? Personally, I don’t know. To a degree I do but then to a degree I don’t. Also would you call Barbe’s poor play “rustiness”? I personally don’t think so but maybe some do.

by packallday555 on Sep 15, 2009 10:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

could not agree more

I work with a whole whack of border hopping cheese-eaters, and have had all I can take of their Rhetoric a$$ dribble. see yahoo sports.com / week two playoff forecast ,they predict a 69.1%chance for the vikes and a 29.0% chance for the pack of winning the division,and if juice law and your little buddies are reading "endorse that " sincerely, what did you call me, jim bob? see ya week # 4 and again week # 8 p.s . lay off the grammer patrol s#!* you may be right but it’s still grasping at straws!

by whanabarf on Sep 16, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions  

Ladies and gentlemen,

Our first troll in over 24 hours!

"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."

by Mitchell Maurer on Sep 16, 2009 2:41 PM CDT up reply actions  

ya right !

rubber ducky your the one, who makes bathtime lots of fun! now lets all go down the drain togather!

by whanabarf on Sep 16, 2009 2:48 PM CDT up reply actions  

About time someone made fun of the duck

"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."

by Mitchell Maurer on Sep 16, 2009 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions  

predictions...

Predictions in the NFL after week 1 are worth as much as a cake without frosting… In the end anything can happen you could put chocolate, vanilla, or anything else on it.

by bizzle4 on Sep 16, 2009 11:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

Yea, they didn't look great offensively, but they didn't the past two seasons either.

and I don’t think the Bengals will be a pushover by any means, but last seasons stats don’t matter and I’m not really that impressed by shutting down a Denver team that is now quarterbacked by Neckbeard, has a whiny star receiver who makes TO look like a mature adult, a rookie runningback and Corel Buckhalter.

by Charlie Kelly on Sep 15, 2009 6:35 PM CDT reply actions  

Also, despite the offense's shortcomings

it was nice to see Rodgers lead a comeback drive that wasn’t against the Lions. I know they lost a lot of games last year by a small margin and some of them were due to Rodgers coming up short in the clutch. Things could always go south later, but this was a positive and hopefully a sign of things to come.

by Charlie Kelly on Sep 15, 2009 6:39 PM CDT reply actions  

Nice analysis

If we can protect Aaron better and get rid of the dropped passes we should have plenty of favorable match-ups to exploit. This can open up the running game, which I was very pleased with last weekend. Grant showed a lot of strength in his legs and gained a lot of tough yards.

P.S. I just hope we don’t trap ourselves and take these next two games lightly.

by shakesd33 on Sep 15, 2009 7:30 PM CDT reply actions  

For outsiders...

This past week was a tough, baredown, defensive, emotional, rival game for the Packers. Dont expect to see all the rust and shakiness against Cincy. The Bears will be tough this year how good?.. who knows but I do know no matter what their record is at the end of the season they always play the Pack at 110% the game could have gone either way, both teams missed many chances but thats what the bear-packer rivalry is close hard fought wins.. The Packers should get right back in the groove they were in the preseason and roll on Cincy…

by bizzle4 on Sep 15, 2009 7:58 PM CDT reply actions  

" who knows but I do know no matter what their record is at the end of the season they always play the Pack at 110% the game could have gone either way, both teams missed many chances but thats what the bear-packer rivalry is close hard fought wins.. "

this is a great point bizzle4. I think all the fans in our division can relate to this. It seems the divsion games are always tough ones, no matter the talent of the teams each year. Perfect example..Vikes having 2 very close games with the Lions last year. Another example would be us losing to the Bears twice in our dominant 07’ season.

by packallday555 on Sep 15, 2009 10:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

Don't over look the Bengals...

Big Caveat – I’m a Bengals fan from Cincy Jungle. That said, the Bengals defense is clearly ready to improve from its number 12 ranking last year with the addition of Maulaluga, Michael Johnson, and Roy Williams. Keep in mind the Bengals got three sacks on Orton against a Broncos line that gave up close to the fewest sacks in the league last year – and most of the pressures came from rushing only four. Jonathan Joseph and Leon Hall are two first round picks at the corner position and held Denver WRs to a fairly pitiful performance last week even when the Defense was on the field for most of the second half. The Broncos also never entered the Bengals’ redzone. The Broncos may not be an imposing offense, but the Bengals held them to 220 total yds until the fluke play ended the game. Holding any professional offense to 220 yds is no small feat.

On offense, Carson Palmer only played less than a quarter during the entire preseason and it showed. He is healthy, however, and showed some flashes of 2005 and 2006 on the final drive of last week’s game. Chad Ochocinco racked up 89 yards against Champ Bailey and appears to be back in pro-bowl form. Andre Caldwell stepped in for TJ Houshmanzadah pretty effectively when he wasn’t on the sidelines watching the usually sure-handed Laveraneous Coles dropping passes. Cedric Benson is probably the weakest link, followed closely by the Offensive Line. If Palmer can get good enough protection to get the ball to the outside receivers, the Bengals offense can be dangerous.

On Special Teams, the Bengals rookie punter kicked all 5 punts inside the 20 yard line, giving the Bengals field position advantage for the entire game.

Finally, the Bengals have a stronger veteran contingent than in past years. A previous Bengal team may folded their tent after last Sunday, but not this one. Also, Marvin Lewis got this team to play really hard every Sunday last year in the midst of a 4-11-1 season. Be advised, the Bengals will come ready to play.

Being the pessimist that I am, however, I have no confidence that the offensive coordinator, Bob Bratokowski (former Packer QB Zeke’s son) can put together an adequate game plan to get the ball to Bengals’ playmakers. In tight of the “BS at PBS,” (Cincy Jungle’s name for the Stokely fluke reception), I’m convinced anything is possible, even Bob Bratkowski putting together a winning game plan.

After all, anything that happens this week can’t be worse than what happened last week.

"Ryan, Things in here don't react too well to bullets." - Marko Ramius

by TarZander on Sep 15, 2009 8:42 PM CDT reply actions  

This Bengals defense is getting alot better in a hurry

Jonathan Joseph and Leon Hall are becoming a young version of Al Harris Charles Woodson. Those guys are really physical corners that are fun to watch. I watched the Phiily game last year and your entire defensive backfield was awesome, especially Chris Crocker.

So who did end up starting? Chinedum Ndukwe, or Roy Williams? I would’ve gone with Ndukwe in a heartbeat.

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words—"mank" and "ind". What do these words mean? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.
-Jack Handey

by jobe on Sep 15, 2009 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions  

Williams is starting but Chinedum "The Duke" Ndukwe is really pushing him.

I would not be surprised to see Ndukwe starting at the end of the year.

"Ryan, Things in here don't react too well to bullets." - Marko Ramius

by TarZander on Sep 15, 2009 10:21 PM CDT up reply actions  

…the Bengals defense is clearly ready to improve from its number 12 ranking last year with the addition of Maulaluga, Michael Johnson, and Roy Williams.

If the the Bengals defense improves, I sincerely don’t believe that Roy Williams will have a lot to do with why.
Most of the Cowboys fans I know hated that guy when he was with them.

The glass is more than half-full.

by NorthStarr on Sep 15, 2009 11:54 PM CDT up reply actions  

Roy brings something to the run defense.

And that’s about the extent of it. On the Marshall play, he was notably at the ball – though he didn’t properly play the ball off the tip, he was in position.

by jsl413 on Sep 16, 2009 1:02 AM CDT up reply actions  

2008, preseason 2009, week 1 - 2009, nothing matters but Vegas

2008 Bengals def. was not better than the Bears. Even if you believe that, don’t compare what Cinn. did to an Orton Bronco team to what Chicago did.

 Weeks 15 – 17 the Bengals fared pretty well, but that was vs. Redskins, Browns and Chiefs……bottom feeders. Week 11 they shocked the Eagles with a tie. Okay. Nice.

However-
Week 5 Cowboys 31Bengals22
Week 6 Jets 26 Bengals14
Week 7 Steelers 38 Bengals10
Week 8 Texans 35 Bengals6
Week 12 Steelers 27 Bengals10
Week 13 Ravens 34 Bengals 3
Week 14 Colts 35 Bengals 3
…………………………dems alotta points

Rivers is really good, Maulaluga could become really good, and Roy Williams is a horse-collaring has-been.

Bet on them if you think the Bengals will keep it close or win.

 

by Squatbulk on Sep 15, 2009 9:35 PM CDT reply actions  

Hmm

I wonder why you leave weeks 1-4 and 9-11 out of that carefully crafted list. Does it not play into your argument so what the heck just leave it out?

by Sand0 on Sep 15, 2009 10:17 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hmmm

Week 10 was a bye, he said they tied the eagles in week 11 and I’m assuming he didn’t bring up 1-4 because they allowed an average of about 22 PPG which wouldn’t have really tied into what he was trying to say.

by Charlie Kelly on Sep 16, 2009 6:04 AM CDT up reply actions  

Understood...

but the bulk of the points in those blowouts were scored in the second half after the Bengals defense was on the field for most of the game. The Bengals offense was dead last in the league last year with all of the injuries. I agree it wasn’t pretty, but the defense started to gel after going through the crucible in mid-season. They have one year more experience plus new talent.

My only point is that the Bengals did a lot of good things last week on the defensive side of the ball only to have them overshadowed by the fluke play at the end of the game.

I agree, however, it’s an uphill battle for the Bengals to steal one against the Packers at Lambeau. I would expect to see improvement on both sides of the ball from the Bengals this week, so to call it a Packers walkover is just premature. But I’m a Bengals fan, so it’s my job to drink the kool-aid….

"Ryan, Things in here don't react too well to bullets." - Marko Ramius

by TarZander on Sep 15, 2009 10:20 PM CDT up reply actions  

Chicago had a poor pass defense , but still beat the Saints holding them to 24 points.

Maybe their #5 run defense was so good that teams had to score All their points via the air. Rankings don’t always tell the full story.

by Squatbulk on Sep 15, 2009 9:46 PM CDT reply actions  

Good point.

I recall the 2001 Bears team, which had a great defense. However, they ranked toward the bottom in terms of pass defense.

"I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart."
-Anne Frank-

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Sep 16, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions  

Some at Cincy Jungle are calling it,
Cincinnati is 0-1 after losing on a comically fluky 87 yard TD…

‘The BS at PBS’.

The glass is more than half-full.

by NorthStarr on Sep 15, 2009 11:22 PM CDT reply actions  

If the Bengals’ offensive line falters, then this swings in Green Bay’s favor by a wide margin.

The Bengals’ offensive line appears to be in about the same state of disarray as the Packers’ was several years ago, when Darryn College was in and out of the lineup regularly.

The glass is more than half-full.

by NorthStarr on Sep 15, 2009 11:32 PM CDT reply actions  

Wow, do you live under a rock?

Unreal…talk with us Sunday night.

"A lie can travel around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes".....Mark Twain

by a_madmule on Sep 17, 2009 4:53 PM CDT up reply actions  

Somebody answered the prayer

Research and knowledge of the game. Try it some time!

"A lie can travel around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes".....Mark Twain

by a_madmule on Sep 20, 2009 11:19 PM CDT up reply actions  

Bengal fan here

If you guys play up to your full ability you have the edge. I would caution you that last week is not a good gage of the team we will be as the season progresses. Of the standard starting 22 players 11 of them are new to the team or their positions. That is half of the team. It is unrealistic to expect a team to come together as a unit in PS games. I know it makes us seem like sore losers but the loss was a fluke, we beat them in almost all major categories. If not for a one in a million play we win – barely – but we win. We just have not had a chance to get the kinks out. It is kind of like gettng a new set of golf clubs. You have to play a few rounds before you get the feel.

Listen, we are not a great club, we know that, but we are better than most think and will continue to get better all season. I don’t think you have better overall talent or coaching. You do however have a more cohesive team and that gives you the edge. We are however coming into GB very POed and, though I don’t think we are quite good enough to beat you if you play at your top level if you falter and a player or two don’t have good games we can surprise you. Don’t believe everything you read. If the team feels the way QznCoop does you just might get your butts handed to you.

Lets hope we both come out and play injury free win or lose.

" My enemy said "Love your enemy". I obeyed and loved myself." Gibran

by JUNGLEJOHN on Sep 16, 2009 8:17 AM CDT reply actions  

Based on what I've heard
If the team feels the way QznCoop does you just might get your butts handed to you.

The team was VERY humbled by the numerous inconsistencies that kept them from handling the Bears game. If some of our fans are confident (possibly overconfident), that’s one thing, but I would bet nearly anything that the Packers will not overlook this team.

"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."

by Mitchell Maurer on Sep 16, 2009 8:45 AM CDT up reply actions  

johnson

is out of gtech but back to game. this is a team that could not do anything to one of the worst defenses in the league but that final drive that play was a fluke but they should not have been in that position. That wont happen in green bay big win pack

by packfan90' on Sep 16, 2009 11:09 AM CDT reply actions  

Just what Bengals fans want!.....

I sure hope the Packers are as nearsighted as some of the fan comments. The talent pool in the NFL is so close. From week to week any team can win. That’s the reason the NFL is so popular.

Two big factors to look at is injuries and turnovers. I was very happy when I saw Denver as our Week 1 opponent. They appeared to be in dire straits and I thought we would intercept weak-armed Orten at least 3 times, but that didn’t happen. Carson was extremely rusty, but shook off the rust late in the game.

The Bengals are not tobe taken lightly right now. This team is like a baby raccoon caught in a live trap. “Oh, look at the cute widdle fuzzy racoon”. Go ahead and try to pick it up…..grrrrrrrrrrrrrr..bite…ahhhhhhhhhhhh. Followed by rabies and a full cycles of shots in the ass to get rid of the rabies.

The Packer O-line gave up 4 sacks last week. Only 76 yds rushing 150 yds passing. This really bodes well for a talented Bengal defense. I wouldn’t be too quick putting this in the win column for the Packers.

"A lie can travel around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes".....Mark Twain

by a_madmule on Sep 17, 2009 4:50 PM CDT reply actions  

The Bengals are not tobe taken lightly right now. This team is like a baby raccoon caught in a live trap. "Oh, look at the cute widdle fuzzy racoon". Go ahead and try to pick it up…..grrrrrrrrrrrrrr..bite…ahhhhhhhhhhhh. Followed by rabies and a full cycles of shots in the ass to get rid of the rabies.

Best. Analogy. Ever.

"Brandon Jennings needs a nickname before he gives himself one. Oh wait, Young Money, he already did."

by Mitchell Maurer on Sep 18, 2009 3:39 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hysterical

Your team definitely gave away the game to the Donkeys last week. It was priceless to read comments on MHR about how it was a great win. Might go down as the luckiest play in the history of the NFL.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 19, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions  

As Bengal fans, we are numb to the craziness...

The Bengals are really searching for an accelerant to ignite a lasting fire under their butts. “Only the Bungles”,
I’ve said a thousand times.

"A lie can travel around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes".....Mark Twain

by a_madmule on Sep 19, 2009 2:11 PM CDT up reply actions  

Hey

at least the defense is good, and 85 seems to have a bounceback year.

"Repetition is only good when you've been winning." - Valet

by propheteer on Sep 19, 2009 2:23 PM CDT up reply actions  

Let me retract my previous statement

I don’t think that Cincy has no chance, every team in this league has a chance any given Sunday, I just think if the Packers play like they’re capable of then Cincy will have to play their best game ever to win.

I’ve stated before, where Cincy is good the Packers are also good and where Cincy is bad, the Packers have a major advantage. That main advantage being the Packers front 7 giving the Cincy O-Line hell. And Cincy fans can say how bad the Packers O-Line played the Bears and rightfully so, but I really feel like those mistakes in fundamentals will be corrected come Sunday.

by FavreSucks on Sep 18, 2009 5:06 PM CDT reply actions  

I have no idea what the Packers themselves think of the Bengals and what the fans say or think doesn’t really matter too much — except to other fans. Overconfident home team fans keep their local bookmakers in business.

I think this game could be tougher than GB fans think. I don’t agree at all that the Packers match up perfectly with Cincy. For one, the Bengals have a good DL and the Packers are weak on the OL. That’s a big problem for the Packers right there. On top of that, Cincy DBs are better than Chicago’s, which means this game could turn out to be tougher than the Bear game for the Packer offense. And if the defense is on the field too long, there’s no telling what will happen. This game could be a struggle for the Packers.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Sep 18, 2009 11:43 PM CDT reply actions  

I don't know what to say

I don’t want to say I told you so but I did. No I am not trolling. This was not so much a statement as to how bad the Packers played as it is about how determined the Bengals were. Your Oline got beaten pretty badly yesterday and I didn’t feel that you had the cohesion you are going to need. Raji will help and you are suffering from some injuries. I am sure you will be back. Your team is very good – they just were not ready to lay yesterday. Listen, as a Bengals fan I know all about losing . Keep your heads up. I pick you to win the division and hope you can put a licking on the guys in our division. It could be worse. You could be Browns fans.

" My enemy said "Love your enemy". I obeyed and loved myself." Gibran

by JUNGLEJOHN on Sep 21, 2009 7:45 AM CDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to Acme Packing Company, the SBNation blog for fans of the Green Bay Packers.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Gassertaylor_small
APC Open Thread #32: Exit Stage Left, Pursued By Justin Smith

Recent FanPosts

Football-funny-pic_small
NFL could add two new teams
Ukcat_small
Nike taking over Jerseys
Small
Free Agency Opinions
Small
NFL needs to fix its playoff system...
03112008811_small
My Father, the Packers Shareholder!
Ellingtonspiller_small
An Offseason Plan: Getting Back On Top
Small
Trade Rodgers, Keep Flynn, Build Team, Get 5 first round picks
Small
Sports Kings Mock Draft 1.0
3445788_small
The APC playoff bracket challenge: Part two

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Manager

Acmepackingco_small Brandon

Author

Rubberducky_small Mitchell Maurer

Ayrton_senna_1988_canada_small Vermont Cubs Fan

Texbucky_small texwestern

Gassertaylor_small OBrienSchofieldismyHero

Img00243_small Kevin McCauley