Acme Packing Company: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: SB Nation NFL Power Rankings for Week 11

The Fight For First Place: Round One

CAN YOU FEEL THE TENSION?  If you can't, it's probably because you're comatose.  Either that, or you don't rightly care about either team involved in Monday Night's NFC North showdown.  Which is fine, I guess.

For the rest of you that can feel the tension, let's take a deep breath and relax for a second.  Here, watch Daniel Tosh make fun of Nebraska.  It always makes me feel better.


As someone who has spent several fortnight-long excursions to Nebraska, I can't think of a state that would be more appropriate for Mr. Tosh's message.  Unless you say Montana, but I'm convinced that Montana just flat-out doesn't exist.

Alright, enough of that foolishness.  If you're looking for a breakdown of Packers-Vikings, have I got the treat for you...after the jump.

Star-divide

MIN rushing vs. GB defense: You've probably seen it, but it's pretty freakin' cool, so I'm gonna have you watch it again.

There are two glaring mistakes in this video: real life isn't in black and white, and AP doesn't have hexagonical scales that make him look like a cybernetic human-dinosaur-hybrid gladiator-assassin. 

Everything else is fairly realistic.  AP will smash, dash, cut, juke, spin, hurdle, and quite possibly double-stiff-arm his way through all challengers because, well, he's AP.  Granted, San Francisco did manage to hold him to 85 yards on 19 carries.  (WEAK!  I SCOFF AT ADRIAN PETERSON AND HIS PUNY 4.5 YARDS PER CARRY!)  That said, he's still managed to rack up 357 yards and 4 TDs with a 6.1 average.  Yikes.  But they have few other options to run the ball.  Chester Taylor is averaging less than 3 yards on his 17 carries, and Percy Harvin only has five carries.  They've generally been decent gains, but he lost 8 yards in his lone rushing attempt against San Francisco.  This doesn't mean that neither of them are capable of putting up yards on the ground, but they haven't shown it in a way that's demonstrable through numbers.

It helps that the blocking is usually superb.  Bryant McKinnie (6'8", 335) and Steve Hutchinson (6'5", 313) are stalwarts on the left side, but are 30 and 31, respectively.  On the right side, Anthony Herrera (6'2", 315) and Phil Loadholt (6'8", 343) have significantly less experience, but are competent in opening running lanes.  The weak link is definitely new center John Sullivan (6'4", 301), who is no Matt Birk.  But these guys are big, they are nasty, and they don't like it when defenses try to tackle Peterson behind the line (even though it happens more frequently than you'd think).

Green Bay extended the consecutive streak of 100+ yard outings from opposing running backs when Steven Jackson gained 117 on 27 attempts.  Jackson's performance was more impressive than Cedric Benson's before him because a) Jackson managed to break off some big gains (including a 20-yarder), b) he had weaker blocking than Cincinnati has, and c) the linebackers played well on Sunday.  A.J. Hawk, Brandon Chillar, and Nick Barnett combined for 19 tackles and looked much better (but far from perfect) in run support. 

Green Bay's best chance of corralling AP is to get good penetration from Jenkins, Jolly, Pickett, and Raji (if he is healthy enough) and string Peterson's runs to the outside where the linebackers and corners have a chance to flow and gang-tackle or use the sidelines.  Of course, it might help to use Peterson's violent running style against him to force a fumble or two; his biggest weakness is carrying the football consistantly (9 fumbles in 2008).

Advantage: Minnesota.  Unless Green Bay uses the 3-5-3 alignment with Kampman, Matthews, Hawk, Barnett, and Chillar to clog running lanes and direct defensive pursuit, which could actually keep AP under 100 yards.

Or if Peterson's "troublesome" back gives out.  Because he's, you know, carrying the team.  And some of those guys are heavy.

MIN passing vs. GB defense: Well, well, well, look who came crawling back to play Green Bay.  Wait...you say he's not crawling back?  He's playing well?  He did this?  Undefeated?  Oh.  Nevermind.  Let's skip all the drama (or at least save it for the other posts) and get down to brass tacks; we need to talk about Brett Favre v.2009. 

After skipping training camp, people said that the only way Favre could succeed early in the season is if he played the role of game manager and let Adrian Peterson carry the offensive load.  Those people were correct.  In the first two weeks, Favre was 37 for 48 (77% completion) with 265 yards and 3 TD's.  Those are good-day Kyle Orton-esque stats, especially the 0 INTs and the 5.5 yards per attempt.  Peterson did what he did best, and the Vikings won both games despite being somewhat hampered by slow starts.

Whether it's simply getting into the groove of the offense, or healing from his bicep injury and subsequent surgeries, or even a result of the Vikings wanting him to get warmed up only in the week before the Packer game (/conspiracy theory'd), Favre was not the same quarterback against the 49ers.  Against a tough defense, he went 24 of 46 for 301 yards and 2 TDs.  He actually put some force behind his throws and displayed the touch on the deep ball and mobility in the pocket we came to know and love.

His biggest vulnerability is his pass protection, surprisingly.  Over three games, Favre has been sacked 9 times, and it would have been 10 were it not for a sweet side-step on the last play in week 3.  He is showing his age when defenses come at him, and his offensive line is showing a weakness I didn't know they had.  Part of it might be McKinnie's age (unlikely), Loadholt's inexperience (possible), or Sullivan's poor line adjustments (probable).  I don't follow the team well enough to know why Favre has been hit so many times against teams like Cleveland and Detroit.  But he is vulnerable back there. 

As far as receivers go, there are three main targets that pose a significant threat: Percy Harvin, Visanthe Shiancoe, and Chester Taylor.  Adrian Peterson would be dynamic in the passing game if he were a better catcher, and Bernard Berrian's deep route skills have not yet been displayed in the regular season (and I'm not sure they've done it in practice).  Harvin is extremely adept after the catch, Shiancoe has developed into a solid underneath and seam TE, and Taylor has always been an excellent 3rd down back.

Green Bay's pass rush isn't imposing statistically (5 sacks), but they do a good job of getting to the quarterback, disrupting his rhythm, and giving him a good hit when they're close enough.  Jenkins and Jolly should be able to get decent pursuit on passing downs, and Pickett and Raji should draw enough double teams to open up a lane for one or two of the linebackers, primarily Clay Matthews and Aaron Kampman.

The best hope Green Bay has of stopping Minny's offense is by baiting Favre into bad throws and forcing interceptions.  Charles Woodson, Nick Collins, Tramon Williams, and Al Harris are all outstanding ball hawks who can take advantage of poor routes by some of Minnesota's lesser receivers.  Favre has historically struggled against 3-4 zone blitzes, and he is certainly capable of a Favre-esque Cutler-esque multiple INT day.

Advantage: Green Bay by the slightest of margins.  Again Favre has struggled against zone blitzes from the 3-4, so let's hope this week is when Dom Capers earns his paycheck.  But don't think that Favre isn't licking his chops to get a chance at his old team, especially if they load the box with 8 defenders.

GB rushing vs. MIN defense: Green Bay's rushing attack is the very definition of the term "meh".  As a team, the Packers have 317 yards through three games (meh).  They're averaging 4.1 yards per carry (meh).  They have four touchdowns against one fumble (meh).  There's just nothing notable about this team's rushing attack.

I'm at a disadvantage because I haven't watched the games from the last two weeks, but either Grant isn't finding the running lanes or the offensive line isn't opening any up for him.  Grant is notorious for running into the backs of his linemen, but he's also well-known for his ability to break off a huge gain.  Considering his longest run of the season is 17 yards, I might be inclined to blame the offensive line.

Minnesota's rush defense has struggled to return to their regular insurmountable selves on a regular basis.  While they held San Francisco to 58 yards on the ground, 54 of those yards were after Frank Gore's first (and last) attempt of the game.  They did allow Jamal Lewis to rack up a 5.2 ypc against them in Week 1, and then Kevin Smith and Maurice Morris put up decent numbers before Detroit fell behind and abandoned the rush.  So it's not like they're a seive, but they aren't as suffocating as we're used to.

A big reason for that is the alleged decline of Pat Williams.  While I'm not sure it's true, it is certainly a feasible argument to say that a 36 year old defensive tackle might start to fall off after 13 seasons.  Regardless, he's still a mammoth load in the middle of the line and will eat up space in a hurry.  His line-mate and namesake Kevin Williams is significantly younger and more athletic.  Jared Allen is above average against the run, as is Ray EdwardsE.J. Henderson's return from his freak toe injury gave the defense a huge boost, mainly because it took the pressure off of Chad Greenway and Ben Leber, who are outstanding complimentary linebackers but falter when burdened with higher-level responsibilities. 

Advantage: Minnesota, but Ryan Grant has historically found success playing against the Vikings.  I would be more surprised if he was held below 50 yards than if he breaks 100.

GB passing vs. MIN defense: There are two statistics in the passing game that have been huge in keeping Green Bay at 2-1 rather than 1-2 or even 0-3: Rodgers has been sacked 12 times this season (losing 92 yards in the process), but has committed exactly 0 turnovers.  That's downright remarkable.  His yardage (714), completion percentage (56.7), and QB rating (97.2) are middling at best, but he has kept the team afloat whenever he was able.  Those 12 sacks are the most troubling thing, though.  While I'm glad that Rodgers has kept the ball despite getting smacked around (one fumble, which was recovered by Allen Barbre), I'm doubtful that he can keep such a streak alive for long. 

My biggest concern has actually been the receiving corps.  Donald Driver has been the only guy to really step it up so far in 2009 (he's playing as if he's a #1 guy again).  Greg Jennings seems to have reverted to being a deep-route specialist.  James Jones, Jordy Nelson, and Jermichael Finley were supposed to be dynamic contributors, but none of them have stood out yet.  Perhaps the offensive line's issues have disrupted the timing so much that the receivers' routes need to be recalibrated, and only the eldest member (Driver) has figured out how to do it.  Still, Green Bay's passing game remains a highly potent group that hasn't performed to capacity yet.

Minnesota's pass defense has been outstanding, allowing only 167.7 yards per game (4th in the NFL).  That stat needs to be tempered with the list of quarterbacks Minnesota has faced: Brady Quinn, Matthew Stafford, and Shaun Hill.  Additionally, they have only played against two receivers that can be compared to Green Bay's receivers: Braylon Edwards and Calvin Johnson.  While the duo of Driver and Jennings will give cornerbacks Antoine Winfield and Cedric Griffin and safeties Madieu Williams and Tyrell Johnson a difficult test, the more concerning matchup is the duo of Edwards and Allen against Green Bay's tackles.

Allen Barbre is lucky that Ray Edwards is not nearly as dangerous as his counterpart, but he will still have his hands full if McCarthy trusts Barbre to take on Edwards one-on-one.  Green Bay faces a tough decision on who to put against Jared Allen.  On the one hand, Chad Clifton may be available from his ankle sprain, and he has been somewhat effective against Allen in the past.  On the other hand, Clifton routinely resorted to holding Allen whenever he got beat, and his lateral quickness was in decline before he injured his ankle.

As counterintuitive as it seems, I actually think Daryn Colledge might stand a better chance of locking down Allen.  Colledge is much faster than most LTs, which matches up well against Allen's speed rushing.  He also plays higher than most LTs are taught to play, which is usually a problem, but playing higher will make lateral movement easier and could help him ride Allen out of the pocket.  It also makes him more susceptible to double moves, which Allen is highly proficient at, so Colledge might give up some hits all the same.  In any case, I feel more comfortable matching up the younger, healthier, more athletic Colledge against Jared Allen than the older, injured, and surgically-repaired Clifton.

Advantage: Push.  If the trends from this season continue, Minnesota has the edge.  If the players actually perform up to their potential, Green Bay has it.

Preliminary verdict: This is a game that both fans are overly optimistic about their team's chances.  Both teams have significant strengths and weaknesses, and both fan bases are convinced that their team will have the upper hand.  I am firmly on the fence about what's going to happen on Monday, but I can tell you that there will be a whole lot of Favre-centric coverage.

Just imagine what this scene would look like if it were being played in Green Bay.  Yikes.

Poll
What outcome do you see for Week 4 vs. Minnesota?
Big GB win.
142 votes
Slim GB win.
434 votes
Too close to call.
271 votes
Slim MIN win.
361 votes
Big MN win.
262 votes

1470 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs  |  Comment 154 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I'd have to say...

The fact that the game is in the Dome (something you did not really cover too much) gives the Vikings a slight advantage in the overall game. The fans at the Dome will be fired up for this game, if they’re not, then everyone there must be in a coma. Hell, if you want to believe the analysts, this is the Super Bowl of the NFL… in week 4. Favre vs. the Packers! Hell yeah, get fired up for the greatest game of all time! Etc. etc.

Regardless, I think the Dome gives the Vikings an advantage just because it will be damn near impossible for Rodgers to audible…. Outside of the center, nobody else will probably be able to hear him. I have a feeling that’s how loud it will be there.

One other thing you passed up was the coaching match up. Childress has improved this year, but I still give McCarthy the advantage. I think he’s a better coach, and will probably be able to cook up some nasty plays. Dom Capers and Leslie Fraizer are both monsters as defensive coordinators, so I’d say it’s a push there. But, regardless, I think the Pack has the edge in the coaching match up, but it’s not quite as large as it has been in the past.

In the end, I’m excited as all hell for this game. I’m also going to predict a slim Minnesota win in a game that I absolutely expect to be a total bloodbath. Chicago be damned (that’s where I live, and they tend to think they’re the true rivalry of the league), this is now the greatest rivalry in the NFL. Both teams will be amped up and hitting hard. This is going to be one hell of a ride.

by Eric The Viking on Sep 29, 2009 10:33 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Dome advantage

There will be more Packer fans at the dome then you think. Packer fans always buy up every available ticket for the game at the dome as soon as the schedule comes out. It will be loud in there but it will be loud for both teams. I would put the split at 80-20 Vikings, hardly enough to make it impossible to play in.

by Dogg Pound on Sep 29, 2009 11:07 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

lets hope they are packer fans!

and not those “true fans” favre was talking about..

by bizzle4 on Sep 29, 2009 9:29 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It helps that the Vikings

Are known for putting in artificial crowd noise which should be banned by the NFL. I don’t know why the other teams haven’t come together and tried to put a stop to the Vikings adding fake crowd noise at every home game cause it definitely gives them an advantage.

by FavreSucks on Sep 29, 2009 1:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

This hasn’t been proven. It is only speculative. And is also speculated to exist in other enclosed arenas (Falcons and previously the Lions). I’m guessing opposing players and coaches just aren’t used to the reverberation of the natural crowd noise and assume something odd is happening.

by Jayrome007 on Oct 1, 2009 11:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Honest Question Eric The Vikings

How has Childress improved this season as a coach?

I just don’t see it. The Browns are probably the worst team in the NFL and the Vikings were down at half-time. The Lions are one of the worst teams in the league and I believe the Vikings were once again down at half-time, and the 49ers didn’t have their entire offense (Frank Gore) and if Dre Bly didn’t drop and easy Favre INT the 49ers would’ve won in the dome. I know a lot of people on here don’t like MM but he his a way better coach than Childress IMO.

by FavreSucks on Sep 29, 2009 1:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Honest Answer

Being down at halftime has nothing to do with whether you are a good coach or not. I could argue that the adjustments made at halftime by the coaches were tremendous and led the Vikings to victory. Dre Bly drops an easy INT, and your statement about the game result is true. But EJ Henderson actually intercepted a ball in the end zone a play before the Vernon Davis 4Q TD only to have it overturned because the play clock expired just before the snap. That crap evens out.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I Understand Both Points

I see where FavreSucks is coming from though. If the Vikings are a Super Bowl contender like so many think, why did they have a hard time against two bottom feeders and a team without their best player?

Stuff does happen in games but I don’t think you can look at the first three games of the season and say Brad Childress is a new coach. With the Vikings talent a good coach comes out and crushed the Browns like the other two teams that have played them this season.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well

Then why didn’t MM and the Pack crush the Rams on Sunday?

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 4:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If the Vikings lost on Sunday

Would you think Childress is a better coach? It’s just my personal opinion but I think everyone in Packer nation is glad that Childress went to Minnesota instead of interviewing with the Packers because even though McCarthy has his faults, I think he is clearly a better coach than Childress. I remember a couple of games last season and the season before where Childress didn’t even realize the correct down and distance and it really hurth the team.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Take a look at my post

near the bottom of this string and you will have your answer. Btw, I don’t believe that MM is any better than BC. In fact I see them as very similar coaches.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

MM isn't better than BC?

Wow. MM is basically the offensive coordinator and he has had a top 8 offense every single season with bad offensive lines. BC has had a ton of talent (although not at the QB position) and everyone until they picked up Favre has absolutely crucified him in Minnesota. How come once you guys go 3-0 he is now a good coach? Doesn’t make sense to me.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 6:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Who the heck said BC was a good coach!

Seriously, I think you’re just trying to pick a fight. We AGREE WITH YOU. MM is better!

by Jayrome007 on Oct 1, 2009 11:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you really want to know...

Yes. I’ll give you two solid reasons why, half time adjustments against Cleveland and Detroit.

Chilly from two years ago, and even from last year, would have continued to run the same plays, and the game would have been close and we probably would be looking at 1-2 right now, instead of 3-0. However, he made the necessary adjustments in the second half, and the Vikings are sitting at 3-0.

Who cares if we were down at the half? I don’t. I really can’t put a whole lot of stock into it, and it annoys me that everyone else does. A win is a win, period. If you really want to break it down, how close were you guys to losing to the Lions last year? And us? And just about every other team that played them? Yeah, the Lions barely lost half of their games (less than one score). Of course, no one cares about the score, nobody really says, “Oh, the Lions were really tough today, they played a close game, but the other team was better.” Instead, everyone says, “LAWLS, THE LIONS WERE 0-16 LAST YEAR, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!” In reality, if the logic you’re applying to this year’s Vikings is true, then at least 8 teams from last year (ranging from playoff teams to dregs) were absolutely terrible, because they could only beat the Lions by one score. I just don’t buy it.

The only thing that matters in the NFL is the W. You can blow a team out, or you can squeak out a win, at the end of the season, nobody is going to look back at the score of week one and say, “Ya know, even though the Vikings finished 12-4 and won the Super Bowl (biased hypothetical, I know, just bear with me), they were down at the half against the Cleveland Browns in week 1. Remember that? Man, they were a bad team!”

Regardless, you’ve gotten me off on a tangent (well, this entire thread did), and my original point remains… Childress has improved as a coach, he actually made effective halftime adjustments. That is something he hasn’t done ever before, regardless of who the Vikings were playing.

by Eric The Viking on Sep 29, 2009 6:12 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Eric

I agree the mid-game adjustments are an improvement over years past. But the defense was playing well in Cleveland and Detroit. It was the offense that came out with different wrinkles after halftime. I wonder how much influence Favre has on those adjustments.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 6:37 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Solid Points

I won’t argue the half time thing, you made your point, but BC is in no way a better coach than MM. If MM had the Vikings run blocking offensive line and Peterson, I’m confident the Packers would be the number 1 offense in the league. They’ve been in the top 8 every season with a terrible offensive line.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 6:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

If you'd look at my first post....

You would see that I agree with you. I think McCarthy is a better coach than Childress, even if the difference is slight (how big the difference is, is currently up for debate. Currently, I’m leaning towards the smaller scale myself, as neither coach has really blown me away with their performance).

by Eric The Viking on Sep 29, 2009 10:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

False

Chilly sucks.

He is not a good leader.

Wade Phillips, Norv Turner, Jim Zorn (did you hear that guy on Total Access, what a f-ing moron, horrible horrible coach – Skins may not win a game all year), along with Chilly, are horrible coaches and will never win the SB.

Eric The Viking, you seem like a very intelligent person, but you will not win the SB this year and it is because of your coach. He is not a good leader. He has total disregard for team chemistry. In the past he has proven, and confirmed by your fan base, that he makes very poor decisions.

I will be around this blog at the end of the year, feel free to track me down. Will be happy to give you your moment of glory if I am wrong, but I would wager A LOT of money that I am not.

by Acme on Sep 29, 2009 8:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

My goodness

What has Mike McCarthy done better than Brad Childress. I am looking for tangible facts. The answer is nothing. Brad and Mike may be the same person. McCarthy and Childress both think they know better than everyone else. What’s worse? Fans in MN knowing their coach lacks experience and hoping he gets better, or fans in GB not having a notion that their coach is awful? You all talk about the Packers personnel as if they were the collective assemblage the 2010 All Pro Team. Why were the 6-10 last season? Hint: It wasn’t because of the players.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 9:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

?

pretty sure I never mentioned the name McCarthy once in my post. FatMac sucks at play calling. Was not my point of my post. Was talking about Chilly.

by Acme on Sep 29, 2009 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

??

And I am talking about Mike AND Chilly

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

“You all talk about the Packers personnel as if they were the collective assemblage the 2010 All Pro Team. Why were the 6-10 last season? Hint: It wasn’t because of the players.”

Well a lot of it was injuries but yes another part of it was coaching. MM definitely isn’t a great play-caller, and has in fact been some of the reason we have struggled thus far on offense. He has advanced to the NFC Championship and Chilly has not done that. Though there are other factors that play into that.

When I look at Chilly and MM there is a difference. Chilly is a poor play-caller because he is soo predictable. MM is a poor play-caller because from time to time he calls plays that make you say, “What the fu** is he calling that for?”. Now occasionally, he’ll call a good game, w/o those wtf moments but it doesn’t happen often.

Really you are right to say their both pretty similar. I would take MM just because I’m a Packers fan and I’m biased.

by packallday555 on Sep 29, 2009 9:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

5-1

or were you looking for the 5-1 head to head record :)

or being in the NFC Championship game.

or having a better record in the same period of time.

I still think the both suck, but thought I would throw in some “tangible” facts or are those not tangible enough for you.

by Acme on Sep 29, 2009 9:25 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Defenseless

Let me make sure that I get this right. You want to credit MM for a 2007 NFC Championship Game that he rode into on the coat tails of a QB you all want to burn in effigy. The 2007 team was basically Mike Sherman’s group of 2005 players, who were so badly decimated by injuries that it cost Mike and the rest of the GB Coaches their jobs.

TT and MM went to the championship game in 2007 on the arm of Brett Favre, and promptly jettisoned him thinking they were the reason the Packers had success. The Packers immediately regressed to 6-12 in 2008.

MM has accomplished nothing, At least BC has won a division championship with a team he himself built.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 10:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Make that 6-10

but I think you get the point

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

assumptions

Belarus, dude you make huge assumptions based on nothing people say and went off on a tangent. MM was in a NFC Championship game, I never said to give him credit, those are your words.

MM has accomplished something, 5-1 record vs Chilly. That is NOT an opinion that is a fact. Was it all MM? No. Was he the coach at the time? Yes.

Let me repeat, I still think they both suck. Which is my opinion. I do think Chilly is a horrible leader, and I do think it will cost you the SB.

Your team is VERY good. Be excited. Please don’t make misquote people.

by Acme on Sep 29, 2009 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Bud

You referenced the NFC Championship game in your post, and I responded. By referencing the game as an answer to a request for tangible facts you seemed to be giving credit. No misquotes here. 5 – 1 against a coach we both agree is so-so is not an accomplishment.

But we do agree. neither of our teams has a world class coach.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 11:14 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wasn't all Favre

Our defense was very good in 07’. 11th in total defense, and 6th in scoring defense.

by packallday555 on Sep 29, 2009 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes

you make a valid point

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 11:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

One More Thing

I know acme mentioned it, but how come McCarthy’s 5-1 record against Childress isn’t relevant when both teams talent levels have been about as equal as possible the last three seasons?

If Kimbo Slice is fighting Kimbo Slice but one is coached by MM and the other is coached by BC and the one coached by MM beats the one coached by BC 5 out of 6 times, who is the better coach?

The 5-1 record is the most relevant way to tell who the better coach is since both teams had the same talent levels.

by GGGamer on Sep 30, 2009 12:43 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Favre Made The 07' Season. Are U Serious?

Belarus, you my friend follow up every good point with something bizarre and just false. I read your previous posts stating that Matthews and Raji weren’t good when they haven’t even really played yet. You make false assertions sometimes and type them down like its a stone hard fact.

You say MM is a bad coach and Favre led the Packers in 07’ all by himself. MM had a huge hand in making Favre have his most successful season in years and it has continued with Rodgers who became the second QB ever to throw for 4,000 yards in his first year starting. MM had a lot to do with Favre being good again after that terrible 4-12 season, but I guess we can’t put that bad season on Favre but we can definitely put the 13-3 season on him. Plus the Packers defense was really good in 07’. Maybe that helped a little bit, nah it was just Favre.

Then you say that Packer fans say MM is the best and all of our players are the best when a majority of people on here think MM is an average coach if not worse and that the Vikings are gonna win on Monday. How does that work? How can someone be a homer yet say they don’t like the coach and their rival is gonna win? Why don’t you read, think, and then type before you make nonsensical comments every post.

by GGGamer on Sep 30, 2009 12:39 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

In order

I never said that Matthews and Raji weren’t good. I said I like Matthews but he is young and inexperienced. I said Raji is not ready to contribute yet, which he isn’t. I think Pickett is average at best.

I state my opinions with conviction, that’s true. You are welcome to debate them.

Please point out any post where I said that Packer fans say MM is the best coach. All fans talk about their team’s players with somewhat inflated abilities and potential, even those who have not proven a thing. I don’t have a problem with that. My question stands. If Favre had nothing to do with it and the players the Packers have are very good, can you tell me what caused the 7 game slide from 13-3 to 6-10 in one year? Injuries happen all the time to every team. IMO it was coaching.

I don’t have to like Chilly in order to be a Vikings fan. I think MM and BC are very similar coaches and neither are as good as they think they are. Yes, I think the Vikes will win on Monday. I am not sure why you have trouble seeing how that works.

by Belarus on Sep 30, 2009 8:31 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I've come to realize

You don’t know much about the Packers, Belarus. You might know a lot about the Vikings, but you definitely don’t know a lot about the Packers.

How can you shut out a 4-12 season led by Favre and all of Shermans guys and then say Favre was the reason the Packers were 13-3 but McCarthy was the coach and it was mostly Thompsons guys?

You are correct, injuries are part of the game, but the Packers had their worse string of injuries I’ve seen from a Packer team in many years last season. Barnett torn acl(their best 4-3 LB), Jenkins torn pec(their best overall d-lineman), Bigby pulled everything(who just came off a great 07’), Hawk pulled everything, Woodson had broken toes or whatever the whole season, Harris missed half the season with a ruptured spleen, Grant couldn’t run full speed because of a pulled hamstring, Tauscher torn acl, Clifton needed surgery on 4 parts of his body, Jones had a partially torn hamstring. I could probably add a few more here to the mix.

The defense and injuries killed them last season, that is why they slipped. It wasn’t because Favre left or MM’s downfall. If you lost Winfield for half the season, Kevin Williams for the whole season, Chad Greenway for most of the season, Griffin played on broken toes, Tyrell Johnson had a messed up hamstring, McKinnie was headed for 4 surgeries, Loadholt tore his acl, Percy Harvin had a partially torn hamstring, and Adrian Peterson couldn’t run full speed because of a reocurring hamstring pull, how would the Vikings do this season? That my friend is why the Packers slipped last season and why the Vikings would as well if they had all of those injuries.

by GGGamer on Sep 30, 2009 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

And

I never said Favre had nothing to do with it, like you in a different way said Favre had everything to do with it. I said MM held Favre accountable and made him a better QB and MM offenses are at the top of the league every season. Favre had a good 07’, MM had a good 07’, and most importantly the defense and run game (Grant) had a good 07’.

I just want you to give credit where credit is due and give blame where blame is due. The fact of the matter is you can’t say Favre made the 13-3 season but place the blame on someone else for the 4-12 season where Favre threw 20td’s and 29ints. If Favre made the 13-3 season then he made the 4-12 season as well. If it was a team effort (which most people would say it is besides Favre fans and Viking fans now) than the Packers players, coaches, and management were equally responsible for the 4-12 season as well as the 13-3 season. It’s simple, what don’t you understand about that?

And I spoke to this in the post above but you said “Why were the 6-10 last season? Hint: It wasn’t because of the players.” So going from 13-3 to 6-10 was all because of the coaching. That tells you how much you know about the Packers.

by GGGamer on Sep 30, 2009 12:43 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I rest my case

Favre is a superstar. Rodgers and the Packers are wannabes. And McCarththy and Thompson are grasping. All your blah, blah, blah, GG didn’t mean a thing.

by Belarus on Oct 5, 2009 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Here's the Deal with 2007

There were no legitimate starting-quality running backs on the team at the beginning of the season — Grant was the third stringer, I believe, after he was acquired, and Jackson didn’t stand out as a feature back. Plus, the offensive line, as it seems has always been the case the past few years, just wasn’t very good. Because the team couldn’t run the ball, MM devised the 5 WR offensive set. Favre had multiple options, and because he was a veteran QB with a very strong arm, he absolutely shredded opposing defenses for several weeks (this accounts for his stats). Opponents responded by dropping 7 and 8 people into coverage, which opened up the running game and enabled Grant (who surfaced about halfway through the season) to become a quality-looking running back with a 5.0+ YPC average. Opposing defenses were betwixt and between: They could get killed by Favre (implementing MM’s offense), or they could get ground down by a decent running back.

The Packers’ defense was also pretty solid that year. It benefited greatly by virtue of the high-octane offense because to some extent the points on the board dictated the play-calling for opposing offenses. The biggest difference between then and 2008 was (i) the Packers had legitimate depth on the defensive line in their 4-3, and (ii) Bigby (a nice TT pickup) was healthy and solid.

I don’t agree that you can blame last year’s 6 – 10 season on injuries. The old saying, of course, is that blaming injuries for losses is for losers; a team should be prepared to deal with a reasonable number of injuries. I think that, instead, MM’s offensive philosophy changed with Rodgers, and that the lack of depth in the D-line just could not be overcome.

by ktenreb on Sep 30, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm Not So Sure

I just replied to you below. You say right above here that blaming injuries for losses is for losers but you then state that we lost to Atlanta at Lambeau because of injuries. If you have legitimate injuries than you have a legitimate excuse. I said as much below.

by GGGamer on Sep 30, 2009 5:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Reasonable was the qualifier

Like your best friend FavreSucks, you employ the rhetorical device of attacking a straw man by putting words in my mouth and then knocking them down. Re-read what I wrote: I said that a roster should be constructed to cope with a reasonable number of injuries, and that the loss to the Falcons was premised upon an unreasonable number of injuries, plus Michael Vick playing like a beast.

It is unreasonable to expect a GM to anticipate that both of his starting safeties will be injured and unable to play at the same time. TT cannot be blamed for having a dysfunctional roster on that account, the curious handling of Aaron Rouse being a different issue. It is, however, reasonable to anticipate that your creaky, old left tackle could get hurt, and that a roster should have a viable option to deal with that likelihood. TT can and should be blamed for forcing MM to play with his second best left tackle, his second best left guard and his second best center as a result of one injury.

I am also concerned with the QB situation. If Rodgers plays the whole season, then fine. But if he gets hurt, Flynn doesn’t look like he’s capable of handling the job. Clearly, he was better than Brian Brohm, but then so am I, and I suck.

by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 6:51 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I agree somewhat

Injuries due hapen. And i do feel that TT has messed up on that behalf. He did not have suitable backups on the roster. Does that mean he has sucked as a GM? No but doesnt mean he is great either.

Flynn showed a lot more confidence in the preseason. IF Rodgers went down it would decrease any playoff shot but i think Flynn would be adequate back there. The only reason he would decrease any playoff shot would be the talent dropoff from Rodgers to Flynn. But that doesnt mean Flynn is a horrible backup.

by bizzle4 on Oct 1, 2009 11:06 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Talking about the 08' season

Not TT. And thanks for bringing up FavreSucks, you never seem to do that; wait, you do it everytime. I was explaining to Belarus, who is obviously uninformed, that the Packers had so many injuries last year and that is why I think they declined not cause Favre wasn’t here. You said injuries are not an excuse but you said injuries were a big part in the playoff loss to Atlanta, which was an injury excuse (that I’m fine with). But you then said you can’t blame the 08’ season on injuries.

Well just like they had unreasonable injuries against Atlanta, they had unreasonable injuries they entire year last season so I think both are solid excuses. I wasn’t talking about how TT has formed the team this year or the depth of the Packers right now. You’re commenting to something different.

by GGGamer on Oct 1, 2009 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh Yeah

And ktenreb, honest question here, why do you take stuff so personally when people aren’t even attacking you? Someone will make a comment/opinion about the Packers that is contrary to yours and you take personal offense to it. I’m not trying to start anything but just chill out. You seem a little sensitive.

by GGGamer on Oct 1, 2009 3:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The team Sherman made?

Greg Jennings, James Jones, Nick Collins, Charles Woodson, Cullen Jenkins, Jason Spitz, Ryan Grant, Ryan Pickett were all big parts of that 2007 team and were all acquisitions made during McCarthy’s time. Also, it’s not the coaches who make player acquisitions and both coaches have a different style of GM.

by Charlie Kelly on Sep 30, 2009 6:18 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Then we agree to disagree

Of course… My initial post was mostly about how Mitch left out home field and the coaching match up in his post.

And while I am not high on Chilly (not until I see something from him first), I still stand by my point that he has improved. Improved being the key word. In years past, he would have done nothing and folded, but the fact remains that he came out of the locker room with a new game plan, and managed to win three games.

I’m not saying Chilly is a great coach, I don’t think he is. However, I think, even with a less than stellar coach, it is possible to win a Super Bowl, especially when your team is as talented as this current Vikings team. To simply write them off because of a coach is an insult to the players on the field. A coach can only do so much before the players on the field make things happen. And let’s face it, if you’re facing a team like the Vikings… Adrian Peterson will run the ball. A lot. There, I’ve predicted the majority of the Vikings offensive scheme. So what if Chilly is predictable… When you have a player like Peterson, it’s not hard to guess what your offense will be doing. That’s why it’s great to have a guy like Favre as the QB, he’s had tons of experience, and he can (and no doubt will) make necessary audibles if teams are stacking the box against Peterson. Eventually, the players play, and they bring the wins. Don’t write off this team (and for that matter, any team with great talent but a mediocre coach.)

by Eric The Viking on Sep 29, 2009 10:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed :)

True re: your initial post.

I don’t follow close enough to know if he has improved, but not sure there are any facts to prove it. Team could have started slow and just woke up in 2nd half.

ETV, trivia question. When was the last time the NFL rushing leader for the season won a SB? I honestly don’t know, but I know that it isn’t very common. If you find the answer let me know.

by Acme on Sep 29, 2009 11:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think 1993

Emmitt Smith and the Dalls Cowboys… not sure, but I think that’s it. ETV is correct. The Vikes do have serious talent. This season the Brett factor makes the Chilly predictability less predictable. But unless Chilly abdicates his power completely, or changes his coaching tendancies, he stands a better chance of getting in the way than winning a SB.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 11:33 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Don't mean to rain on your parade

But to go along with the fact that Chilly will negatively affect a Super Bowl run more than he would positively affect one, Favre will negatively affect a Super Bowl run as well. People look at all his great accomplishments and his great throw on Sunday but they fail to realize that the guy has been terrible in the playoffs since the Super Bowl against the Broncos.

And just having AP isn’t gonna make Brett resort back to the mid 90’s. Ahman Green was great for a handful of seasons (had almost 2,000 yards a few years ago) and every year Brett threw a pick to end their Super Bowl runs. Someone pointed out that he is 3-7 with more interceptions than touchdowns for his last 10 playoff games. That isn’t pretty.

by GGGamer on Sep 30, 2009 12:52 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I've been trying to tell people this

it’s all well and good with Favre until the playoffs. So many chances ruined by poor performances. When he was outplayed by Vick at Lambeau, outplayed by Culpepper at Lambeau, outplayed by Eli at Lambeau. The Rams and Eagles games.

by Charlie Kelly on Sep 30, 2009 6:22 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yes Sir

I always liked Favre because he was the QB of the Packers and they’re my team but I was glad when they went with Rodgers even though I had no ill will for Favre at that time. The reason I was glad Rodgers was given the opportunity was because myself and all my Packer friends looked at Favres playoffs stats since 1997 and they were bad for even an average QB.

I don’t mean to say this to bash Favre at all but the guy, like you just mentioned, has almost single handedly lost a bunch of playoff games because he just aired the ball out and threw pick after pick. He is the only QB in the history of the NFL to throw multiple picks in overtime and I think the biggest stat is the Lambeau Field stat. The Packers didn’t lose a playoff game at Lambeau in 81 years of the franchise. Favre and the Packers have gone 2-3 at Lambeau the last five games.

by GGGamer on Sep 30, 2009 12:56 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I still remember the 03 team

How we came back to win the division at the end of the year, Favre’s fantastic game at Oakland after his dad died. Everyone seemed to think there was something special about the team and that they had come on strong at exactly the right time, then the Seahawks game came and Matt “We want the ball and we’re going to score” Hassleback throws it to Al Harris for the pick six in OT. I thought we had a serious chance at a Superbowl run, then we went to Philly and Favre lobbed up that inexplicable duck to Brian Dawkins. There was also a 4th and 20 something but we’ll forget that for now.

by Charlie Kelly on Sep 30, 2009 1:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Memories

Let’s not forget the 4th and 26 because it is relevant. 4th and 26 became the symbol of the Packers giving up another Super Bowl shot but with that, there was never any Favre ridicule. All we ever hear and heard about was 4th and 26 but the Packers would’ve never been in that position of it wasn’t for the duck Favre threw to Dawkins. I’m glad you mentioned that cause everyone blames that game on the defense. It was once again a team wide loss.

by GGGamer on Sep 30, 2009 1:41 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well . . .

IN partial defense, the year the Packers lost to the Falcons, they had no healthy offensive tackles. That year, the team truly had an unreasonable number of injuries. And Vick played very well.

by ktenreb on Sep 30, 2009 4:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Understandable

But you just replied to me above that the excuse of injuries is for losers and now you’re saying that we had injuries for that Falcons game. You gotta pick one. I think injuries are definitely a part of the game but they can also be a legitimate excuse. If Rodgers gets hurt for the Packers or AP gets hurt for the Vikings, both of their playoff hopes are dashed.

by GGGamer on Sep 30, 2009 5:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Again, you read only what you want to read

I tried to set you straight above, i.e. a “reasonable” number of injuries versus an “unreasonable” number. 2003 involved an unreasonable number.

by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 9:33 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why do you hate Brett Favre?

See, this is my problem with all of you Favre haters. The guy never did anything right in your minds. He isn’t responsible for all of the Packers’ losses in the playoffs. You treat him like a jilted husband treats his ex-wife: Everything about her is wrong and bad, and anybody who treats her poorly is his hero.

Favre was a Packer, and I thank him for many, many entertaining Sundays, and even some Mondays and Thursdays, and an occasional Saturday too. Now that he is a Viking, I want the Packers desperately to beat him, but it’s not personal. I respect the man who holds many of the NFL career passing records (yes, FavreSucks and GGGarner, including career interceptions) and I hope his team loses only two regular season games this year.

The feud from last summer (fault goes to both Fave and TT, but slightly more to TT) is over. Stop trying to pillory the antagonists for that, and instead focus on the present.

by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 7:02 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

U R Crazy

You are seriously so stuck on this Favre thing it is unbelieveable. I never said I hated Favre so quit putting words in my mouth. I said I always liked Favre because he was the QB of my favorite team but I wasn’t sad when he went to the Jets because his playoff record was less than stellar for a while now.

I’ve never said anything bad about Favre except to tell a few Vikings fans to hold off on their Super Bowl celebrations already because he has not been good in the playoffs for years now. How is that utter hate for the man? You act like you don’t give a crap about Favre but you bring him up every post and you antagonize me about supposedly hating the guy when I’ve never said anything on here that would even lead you to believe that. Obviously you’re the Favre lover, it’s not that I’m the Favre hater. You defend him like all the rest of the obsessed fans do so just get over it already, and you can just tell by your comment “slightly more to TT” that you obviously are on Bretts side in the matter so why do you keep bringing me into it?

So this is it finally, ktenreb. If you comment to me again about FavreSucks or about Favre directly when we aren’t talking about him, or you keep randomly insulting me, I’m gonna get a hold of the SB Nation staff and have your email or url or whatever blocked. I’m not gonna be harrassed on a Packer site because I want to talk Packer football with non-obsessed people. So this is your final warning. I’m gonna notify SB Nation if you say anything out of line to me again. I’m sick of your childish attacks and I’m done with it.

by GGGamer on Oct 1, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Why do you hate TT?

All he did was stay true to his word.

You clearly don’t think both Favre and TT were both at blame for the situation. You have only defended Favre and never TT.

I don’t like Favre because he acted like a 16 year old girl when TT told him Rodgers was now the QB. He got upset because TT did not worship the ground that he walked on like many Favre lovers do.

Hell yeah he did a lot of great things for us. He won us a Super Bowl. He had the 3 MVPs with us. And he put the Packers back on the map. I respect the hell out of him for that. And in his time hear he was largely responsible for many of the wins we had and largely responsible for many of the losses we had.

Obviously him going and playing for the Vikes also makes me disrespect him too. That’s where he really wanted to play in 08’, and as we all know he is now with them. He says it’s not about revenge, which is a blatant lie. If it wasn’t about revenge then how can he or anyone else explain him wanting to play for his rival team for 18 years?

Again it’s clear, and doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the only reason he wants to play for the Vikes is revenge. I don’t care that he is doing it only for revenge but I do lose respect for him because he says it’s not about that. He has a big. big ego and the whole fiasco made that clear. He is all about himself and I really can’t respect that, so that is why I don’t like Brett Favre.

by packallday555 on Oct 1, 2009 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

The Pack

Did crush the Rams just as the Vikes crushed the Browns.

by packallday555 on Sep 29, 2009 5:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

the Packers did NOT crush the Rams

though they should have, they decided to make a game of it until Woodson put it away.

Green and Gold / Black, and White

by OznCoop on Sep 29, 2009 7:54 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well

If you consider what the Vikes did against the Browns as them crushing them, then we certainly crushed the Rams.

Both games were closer then the score would appear. I know we didn’t crush the Rams just as the Vikes did not crush the Browns. I was trying to make a point haha. Obviously it didn’t work out well for me…

by packallday555 on Sep 29, 2009 8:28 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nonsense

14-19 points on the road qualifies as a crushing. Let’s see how many games the Packers win on the road by 19 this season. Might be your only one.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 9:04 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Exactly

If you read up in the posts you will see we agree. I don’t agree with the notion that the Packers and the Vikes didn’t crush their opponents on the road.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 10:49 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll answer my own question

Because Cleveland was on the road in Denver and Baltimore. Beating a team by two TDs or more at their place is crushing them. Both the Packers and the Vikings did a great job of taking care of business on the road.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Packers beat the Rams by 20 points

That’s getting crushed in the NFL.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 4:48 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The Pack won by 19

which isn’t much different than 14, especially considering the 23-17 score at the the end of the 3rd Quarter. Either way, I stand by my statement. Both teams did a great job on the road in Cleveland, Detroit (where I think lots of teams will have more trouble this year than in the past) and in St Louis.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 5:52 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

20, 19, whatever

Crosby shanked in extra point so it wouldve been 20, it doesn’t matter. I’m just absolutely positive that the Vikings before this 3-0 start would rather have McCarthy than Childress. You guys are riding high so everything is good right now, such is the way with NFL fans but I see no evidence that Childress is on the same level as McCarthy. You don’t go from being a bad head coach for a few seasons to a good one because you beat the Browns, Lions, and punchless 49ers. I just don’t see anything that would tell me his stripes have changed after being one way for so long.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 7:50 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

We disagree

McCarthy is an average coach. He leans whichever way the wind blows. Blow up Brett, switch to the 3-4… I doubt that he’ll be the Packers coach a couple years from now. As for the 49ers.. “punchless” eh? If I were a Packers fan I’d look out for 11/22 on your schedule.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 9:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Gotta say I agree MM is an average coach. I don think he is better then Chilly though. Well to be fair without Gore they sort of are “punchless”. Though Davis is proving to be a very good te. I’m not sure but I would assume we play the 49ers on 11/22 haha. It will be a tough game for us, as most games will.

by packallday555 on Sep 29, 2009 9:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

The 49ers didn't have their best player

Frank Gore made up a larger percentage of the 49ers offense than any other player on any other team in the league. The 49ers put up some points on your defense without Gore so yes they were punchless.

by GGGamer on Sep 30, 2009 12:29 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Where's your beef?

Um, didn’t he in fact openly admit that “MM” is a better coach than “BC”? What are you challenging him on?

“but I still give McCarthy the advantage. I think he’s a better coach, and will probably be able to cook up some nasty plays.”

by Jayrome007 on Oct 1, 2009 11:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

On MIN passing vs. GB defense

You failed to mention GB’s secondary, which has been aggressive this year (as they were last year) on jumping routes and going after INTs. Favre’s arm still has some power and accuracy (witness the game-winner vs. SF), but Woodson’s nose for the ball this year leads me to believe that he’ll get at least one momentum-changing pick.

"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root

by Clutch16 on Sep 29, 2009 10:40 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I initially included a small part regarding GB's secondary

but I lost it somewhere between editing and publishing. Consider it fixed, and consider this my thanks for finding my omission.

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

by Mitchell_M on Sep 29, 2009 10:59 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I put this below but I'll just reply it to you

Jarred Allen is a good run stopper. Are you serious Mitchell? Jared Allen is a terrible run stopper and the guy even lost a little bit more weight this off-season so he was quicker to the QB. One of the reasons bad teams are having some success running against the Vikings D is because Pat Williams is declining and Jarred Allen is a bad run defender.

Leroy Butler said if he was coaching the Packers, he would run at Allen the entire game to not only wear him out in pass rushing situations but also because he can’t stop the run.

by FavreSucks on Sep 29, 2009 2:02 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

He could

Be a good run stopper but he overruns runs plays a lot because he gets upfield so fast. We definitely need to run at him.

by packallday555 on Sep 29, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I probably should have done more of the due dilligence

on Allen’s run stopping abilities, and everything you said makes perfect sense. However, a player with his ability and his motor is usually pretty good against the run. I was unaware of his drop in weight, though, so that might change things.

It doesn’t change the fact that they have E.J. Henderson, Chad Greenway, and the Williams Wall.

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

by Mitchell_M on Sep 29, 2009 5:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Too close to call

I have no idea how this game is going to go. I have not been so unsure about how good the Packers are in a long time. I can’t tell if they are a playoff team or the same team they were last year. Combine that with the fact that I actually believe in the talent of the Vikings for the first time since… Well, ever, and I’m pretty nervous about this game. It should be very entertaining.

The only reason I feel like the Packers have an edge is that Favre’s emotions are probably going to be pretty out of control, so that could be a good thing for us.

by Pack Man on Sep 29, 2009 10:51 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

That's two instances

What about all of the playoff games he lost where his emotions got the best of him? Favre is 3-7 in his last 10 playoff games with more interceptions than touchdowns. I definitely know what Pack Man is saying.

by FavreSucks on Sep 29, 2009 2:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Those are different emotions

Getting news that your father died isn’t the same emotion as, say, taking the best looking girl (or boy) in school to prom. That said, I don’t think it’s going to be as big for Favre than the return to Lambeau field will be.

by Danwood on Sep 29, 2009 3:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You need a new name

Your screen name unfortunately defines your very being, apparently. Why would ANYBODY call themself “anybody” sucks, unless they are one of those creepy stalkers that eventually have restraining orders entered against them? I wonder if we ought to inform the authorities that you have this sicko fascination against Mr. Favre, an obsession, much like that guy who worshipped Jody Foster and then shot President Reagan because, somehow, it made sense to him. Hinckley was his name, I believe. By chance would that be yours, before you changed it?

by ktenreb on Sep 29, 2009 5:55 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

My screen name was my nick name in college

And has nothing to do with anything you just said.

I have nothing against Favre other than his ability to manipulate situations to his liking by “retiring.” He’s an above average player still, but the Packers needed to move on because they were stuck in a rut with Favre.

I take exception with the equaling of the euphoria of playing against your former team with that of the sadness, anger, and pain of losing your father and best friend.

by Danwood on Sep 29, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Danwood

“I take exception with the equaling of the euphoria of playing against your former team with that of the sadness, anger, and pain of losing your father and best friend.”

It absolutely blows my mind when fans make this game out to be a spiritual thing and speak about it in those terms as well. Fans are getting so crazy about this that I’m starting to get turned off. In the end this is just a football game, nothing more and nothing less. Throughout some of these message boards the Favres supporters are threatening to kill people and Packer fans are saying we lost a brother and all of this junk. It is just football people.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 7:16 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You Are Absolutely Ridiculous

ktenreb, I have an inkling that you think you’re really irratiating me by brining up my name every single post but I actually find it kind of sad. I don’t know if you are seriously that hung up about my username or you’re just trying to annoy me but either way it’s pretty laughable. Out of every poster on this site I find you to be one of the least educated Packer fans and the majority of your posts are just rants about TT.

You call me Hinckley because I have a user name that was meant to be funny. LMAO that is so hilarious that it actually bugs you. If you look at my posts, most of them have nothing to do with Favre at all. If you look at yours, it’s TT this TT this, your user name needs to be changed, your user name needs to be changed. Well I was in the process of getting it changed but now I’m just gonna keep it because you like it so much. I mean you must because you comment on it EVERY single post.

by FavreSucks on Sep 29, 2009 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

um pardon me,

but I’m afraid your dumbass is showing.

Green and Gold / Black, and White

by OznCoop on Sep 29, 2009 7:56 PM CDT up reply actions   1 recs

haha not taking sides

but if that isnt a WIN of a sentence, then i am a fuckin monkey’s uncle

lets go dodgers

by BoeJouma on Oct 2, 2009 1:21 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I think he was referring to the fact that your comments automatically appear completely biased and tainted due to your not-so-conspicuous screenname.

by Jayrome007 on Oct 1, 2009 11:33 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

ktenreb

Could you stop with your childish attacks?

We are here to talk Packer football not make fun of other commentors because they have a screen name that you don’t like. I’m sure it was formed in good fun. It doesn’t say IWantFavreToDie so leave it alone.

I’ve been reading this forum for a while before signing up and you’ve been critical of Thompson more than anyone else has said anything negative towards Brett Favre so why keep harrassing the guy? Lets stick to Packer talk and quit acting juvenile.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 7:11 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I vote we sign a truce to the flame war

any other signers?

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

by Mitchell_M on Sep 29, 2009 7:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Sign Me Up

I’m sick of seeing it as well.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 7:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'm done for this week

Too much Viking/TT/Favre drama. I’ll come back next week under a new user name if SB Nation ever emails me back. I’ll keep reading but I’m done posting for the time being so here is my signature.

by FavreSucks on Sep 29, 2009 7:22 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good riddance

Come back as “NitschkeSucks” or something equally witty.

by ktenreb on Sep 30, 2009 4:21 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I personally know FavreSucks

ktenreb, you really need to let it go. None of your comments to him have been witty either and it’s pretty childish to keep mentioning his screen name that was intented as a joke. I’m not trying to get in a war of words with you like you had with him but you sound like a teenager trying to just start a fight. Grow Up, everyone else on here has.

by GGGamer on Sep 30, 2009 5:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I'll bet you are the same guy

You are FavreSucks, arent you? And your real name is Hinckley, isn’t it?

by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 7:04 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I just signed up

I don’t know what you’ve been reading, but it wasn’t me because I just started posting a short while ago (like maybe ten days ago, I think).

by ktenreb on Oct 1, 2009 4:17 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Definitely Different

Losing your father is way different than getting hyped up for a playoff game. What Favre did against the Raiders was memorable and remarkable but that is completely different than the feeling of trying to win a game by yourself for your team in the playoffs. Favre has done well in “spiritually” memorable games and very bad in emotion filled NFL games.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 3:19 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

both sides have enough proof

and I think both sides are right.

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

by Mitchell_M on Sep 29, 2009 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

seriously?

did you see the NY Giants playoff game? I was there, it was cold, the only thing that made me survive the situation is my blood boiling because I was soooo pissed off by how much Favre SUCKED!!!! The only player on the team that didn’t look like he wanted to be on the field that day was Favre.

Look at the last 1/4 of every season this decade for Favre, including playoffs. Favre is not great.

Eli Manning has more victories in 2007 playoffs then Favre does in this entire decade.

In a regular big game (i.e. Cowboys, Playoffs, etc.) Favre has sucked this decade.

I was at the Oakland game after his dad died, it was an emotional situation that will never be duplicated.

Sorry to burst your Favre bubble. I love the guy, just living in reality.

All that being said, Vikes have a very good team and probably win this game.

by Acme on Sep 29, 2009 8:24 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thats why I said could.

Like others have said, he has caved in emotional games like Playoff Games. He’s a pro and his emotions often do well for him, but he’s also prone to getting over ambitious/frustrated and just heaving the ball up for grabs.

by Pack Man on Sep 30, 2009 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Good breakdown

“Johnson’s poor line adjustments (probable).”

I’m assuming you mean John Sullivan. He’s a smart guy, but has some learning to do to catch up with Birk’s football smarts. I don’t think Birk had a lot left physically; the dropoff here definitely has to do with experience.

Another reason for the poor pass protection is that this has already been the case for a couple of years. Frerotte threw fast (and many INTs) and Jackson moved around. The line is great at run blocking, but never excelled at protecting the QB. With a QB like Favre and a first year starter at center, it’s just a little more obvious.

Grant’s not getting holes from his line. That’s my opinion on that.

Concerning Minnesota’s pass rush, I’ve been really pleased with Ray Edwards so far this year. I expect to see Green Bay give Barbre TE/RB help on a significant amount of passing plays. Allen, I feel, has won the matchup against Clifton so far, but not by much. You’re correct in saying that there’s been a lot of holding. You might be right about putting Colledge in against Allen, but I am confident Allen will figure out the way to beat him and get after Rodgers. The Packers might want to start with Clifton and switch to Colledge part way through the game to force Allen to shift gears mentally.

question- how many safeties does Rodgers have to his name? It seems like a lot, and I’m wondering where the bar is set for a record. 3-4 safeties in his first 20 games as starter or so, correct?

by peterplaysbass on Sep 29, 2009 10:52 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

as far as I know,

he only has two safeties: one this year and one last year. If there are any more, I certainly missed them.

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

by Mitchell_M on Sep 29, 2009 10:53 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

two last year in one Vikings game

…although one was ruled intentional grounding from the endzone when Rodgers shoveled it to the closest Packer he could find after fumbling.

Are we not counting that one?

by peterplaysbass on Sep 29, 2009 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

if it happened,

it counts. I honestly don’t remember it, mainly because I’m going off 6 hours sleep, worked from 4 AM to 9 AM, and I’m going back to work now.

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

by Mitchell_M on Sep 29, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

that sucks

work, work, work.

cool blog though, man. I’m glad I found it.

by peterplaysbass on Sep 29, 2009 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oops.
“Johnson’s poor line adjustments (probable)."

I’m assuming you mean John Sullivan. He’s a smart guy, but has some learning to do to catch up with Birk’s football smarts. I don’t think Birk had a lot left physically; the dropoff here definitely has to do with experience.

Fixed.

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

by Mitchell_M on Sep 29, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

peterplaysbass

I totally disagree with you that Allen has won his career matchups against Clifton. Clifton didn’t allow a single sack and only a couple of pressures to Allen until the second game last season when Clifton’s knees, ankles, and shoulders were headed for surgery.

Clifton, in fact, actually owned Allen every game except the last one. Injury free, Clifton is about a perfect matchup to Allen as there is so I really don’t see how Allen is ahead in the career matchup department.

by FavreSucks on Sep 29, 2009 2:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

That includes

When Allen was with the Chiefs. When the Packer played the Chiefs the last go around with Allen there, Clifton held him to no sacks and no pressures if I remember correctly. That’s pretty outstanding for any LT for any DE.

by FavreSucks on Sep 29, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

They chipped him

Clifton gets a lot of credit, but he rarely went one-on-one with Allen. He generally at least got a RB chip to help. This week, we have to wonder if we can afford to chip to that side, since Barbre needs the help much more on the other side. I suppose we could chip both ways, although it would be nice to have some receivers getting beyond the flats.

by ktenreb on Sep 29, 2009 5:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

His nickname is "AD" goddangit, NOT "AP"! ALL DAY Adrian Peterson.

I hate the mofo, but people getting his moniker wrong cheeses me off.

by Thaddeus? on Sep 29, 2009 10:55 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

well... umm....

AP are his initials.

I believe the 'push off' cost us 'our' SuperBowl...
I believe you 'go for the win'... instead of 'taking a knee'...

by ArizonaVikingsFan on Sep 29, 2009 10:57 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I go back and forth

I refuse to give the man the satisfaction of using his fairly awesome nickname 100% of the time.

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

by Mitchell_M on Sep 29, 2009 11:00 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

AD

our dline pusing AD to the sideline is great except for Hawk isn’t fast enough to flow with him.

We really need Bishop in there. Faster and bigger. Just have Bishop trail AD for the entire game. Capers can use the crazy “Big Okie” formation, I am pretty sure that is why it was invented and we got to practice it on Rams last week.

In the end, it all comes down to our O-line. If they protect, we will win. If we can’t run and AR doesn’t have time to throw, we will get blown out. Right now, I feel it doesn’t look to good for us.

by Acme on Sep 29, 2009 11:45 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

The Okie

I’m not a pro coordinator, but from what I know of the formation, the Okie has a real legitimate chance of completely taking away EVERYTHING the Vikings can do offensively. There have been almost no passes beyond 15 yards in this Farve-lead offense this year (despite that game ending beauty last week). So with 5 LBs constantly clogging the middle, you would take away the only areas we’ve been able to attack at all. And with the extra men spread throughout the box, AD won’t have the ability to stretch it outside, where he gains the majority of his yards. The only concern I’d see with this formation is the Vikings coaches adjusting with 5 WRs. But knowing them, they won’t.

by Jayrome007 on Oct 1, 2009 11:42 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Vikes are pretty fast
Except at QB that is
Will be big factor
http://PackerHaiku.com

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

by PackerHaiku on Sep 29, 2009 12:10 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I’ve been looking forward to and dreading this game ever since Favre first expressed a desire to play for the Vikings.

On one hand, I look forward to what Nick Barnett could do to Percy Harvin if he’s left out to dry, but on the other I fear what Percy Harvin can do to Brandon Chillar if we’re doing the weird 3-5-3 thing again.

And of course I am excited the Packers get the chance to deny Favre the satisfaction of getting his “revenge” on TT, but then again…it’s looking like he will.

by Weldon on Sep 29, 2009 12:58 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I can't believe this post/article states that

Jarred Allen is a good run stopper. Are you serious Mitchell? Jared Allen is a terrible run stopper and the guy even lost a little bit more weight this off-season so he was quicker to the QB. One of the reasons bad teams are having some success running against the Vikings D is because Pat Williams is declining and Jarred Allen is a bad run defender.

by FavreSucks on Sep 29, 2009 1:50 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Purple Favre

Purple Favre is wrong
But black & blue version
Fine with Green & Gold
http://FavreHaiku.com

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

by PackerHaiku on Sep 29, 2009 2:33 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Offensive Lines

I think it all depends on the offensive lines, especially the Packers. If the Packers offensive line is good at all it makes them as dangerous as anyone in the league.
The Vikings are a great run blocking offensive line but a poor pass blocking one.

by FavreSucks on Sep 29, 2009 2:56 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Good Evaluation

  I will be tuning in from afar, but this is one I definitely will pay the NFL to watch via internet! I am indeed from afar, but a Mid-Western dude nonetheless at heart…

  Regarding your analysis of the teams, think is close to spot on…I voted for a close one, with Vikes taking a slim W at the end of the spectacle (my words)…

  I do hope that we all see an exciting a game like last week with us vs Niners, but does NOT have to come down to the last play of the game!

  NOTE: Being an old man, this just might be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back lol….

  Anyway, Good game I wish for you, but not too good!

  Apprecate your perspective on this coming battle!

  May the best team win…

  SKOL!

I would rather be IN the Arena than watching from the stands...That is my life!
* Read Teddy Roosevelt's "Man in the Arena" if you need further explanation...

by vikingfanfrom afar on Sep 29, 2009 3:14 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Thank You Sir

I appreciate a Viking fan coming on here and being reasonable and polite. I wish these discussion boards were like that more often but name calling usually is the result, especially with a lot of Bears fans.

I personally see the Vikings winning a close one also but I see the Packers winning the game in Lambeau and carrying that momentum into the rest of the season with it coming down to the last week or two. Should be a fun season.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 3:23 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I hate to say it

But I think the Vikings win this one big. I just don’t see the Packers stopping Peterson. The running game on the Packer’s side has not been good either.

I suppose our passing game is better, and our pass defense is better, but the running games are just polar opposites right now.

Hopefully the Pack will prove me wrong.

by grant76 on Sep 29, 2009 4:14 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I don't see it

I think this is a close game either way. I see the Vikings being better right now and the Packers being better by the end of the season but I think both games will come down the the 4th quarter.

by GGGamer on Sep 29, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It'll be close

It always is. The Vikes look like a better team then us thus far. Getting Clifton back would be huge for us. If we can get him back I like our chances a lot more. It will all come down to stopping the run. I know our dline can get penetration, I’m just not sure if Hawk and co. will be able to make the tackles. Unfortunate we don’t have Bigby. He is great around the line for us and is a sure tackler.

by packallday555 on Sep 29, 2009 4:58 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Its a new age of football

Unfortunately for us (the Vikings), in this modern NFL passing offense wins championships and running only gets you so far. A better way to state it is, passing offense is much more dynamic and can completely take over a game while running well only keeps things close. As such, I see the Packers passing game finally waking up and leading them to a dominant win, regardless of the success of the Viking’s run game. It pains me to say this, but Packers 35-21.

by Jayrome007 on Oct 1, 2009 11:47 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Vikings

I said last week that I’d talk about the Vikings weaknesses from my perspective. Here goes.

It starts with Brad Childress. He’s not a great game day coach. Brad runs a tight ship and presents himself favorably to the media. But he is dogmatic in his approach. I am convinced that Brad would expect a snowball to melt at Lambeau in January if his gut told him it would. He is slow to adjust, and easy to predict. Brad has done things with personnel moves that have alienated veterans on the team. I don’t believe he is highly respected by his team, and that has killed team morale in the past.

Brett Favre has actually caused a renaissance of sorts in this regard. Previous QBs were 100% under Brad’s influence. Brett is more his own man. It’s a dynamic that will either force Brad to change for good, or lead to a fallout. For now it’s all good. Brad will stick to his run first orientation, but Brett has made the passing game more robust and challenging. For the short-term Brad has essentially pinned his future to Brett after being the only guy in the NFL to see T-Jack as a 2nd round pick. So Brad will let Brett go as long as he is successful. In the long-term it will get very interesting if Brett starts to break down .

The O-line is a concern. I agree with Peter that the pass blocking has always been a weaker than it presents itself. And yet of the 9 sacks this year, 4 have been from DLs, 2 from LBs, and 3 from the safety position. The 4 DL sacks have been spread across the line, not isolated to Kennedy or anyone else. The weakness is on the right side, but it is not terrible. Loadholt had trouble with his footwork earlier this season. He is improving, but can be beat by a strong outside rush. The 3 sacks from S positions may point towards a problem with RBs picking up a rogue blitzer. Nevertheless the O-Line needs to tighten up. Favre has been hit hard on numerous occasions that didn’t result in a sack. McKinnie holds blocks for about 3 – 4 seconds before he lets his guy go. Herrera also has a shelf life. Brett holds the ball longer going through check downs and is not mobile. He is a tough SOB, but I have to wonder how much he can take.

For everything they aren’t against the pass, the Vikings O-Line excels at run blocking. This is why I believe they will beat the Pack on Monday. The Vikings will play it closer to the vest for as long as it takes. They will run Peterson until the Packers prove they shouldn’t. That’s not something I think the Pack can do. You underestimate Chester Taylor who has RB skills that are only slightly inferior to those of Ryan Grant. Percy Harvin is a wild card. His 8 yard loss last Sunday was a pitchout that led him right into a blitzing Manny Lawson. He is fast, elusive, and very strong for his size.

Based on the first three games this season, I see the Vikes having a big night running the football on the Pack. From my perspective, the Packers will have moderate success running the ball. But while the Vikings run defense has shown some chinks, it is still formidable.

Aaron Rodgers will have success throwing the ball, but without a consistent running game he will be heavily pressured. Brett Favre has an advantage because of the Vikings’ running threat, especially when the Packers go into a 3-5-3 set.

Now that I said all of that… it is a NFC North Division game which means it will probably be close, and the result could swing to one team or the other based on a turnover. Home field should be enough to push it the Vikings way.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 4:31 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Nice evaluation

First off the dome gives you guys an advantage. Peterson is able to make those quick cuts that much better on your turf and it also helps your speedy defense.

Totally nailed it as far as evulating Chilly. The guy likes to think he is a great football mind, which he clearly is not. Love the snowball melting line by the way too haha.

It will all come down to whether or not we can stop your run game. I look at last weeks game against the 49ers who also run a 3-4 and would like to think we can do the same but our ILBs don’t compare to theirs. I think our OLBs are better and also think Kampman could have a field day against Loadholt. As well as Pickett/Raji against Sullivan who has struggled with bigger DTs. We will need to force AP to the outside and then have our dline get a good push to take away his cutback lanes. Of course this is easier said then done, and expect AP to have some big runs on us.

You guys have struggled pretty heavily your first 3 possessions of each game so far, so if we can get a few early stops then it will be crucial for us capitialize one those stops. (Unfortunately our offense has struggled early as well) I like the cb-wr matchups we’ll have against you guys as well. I would imagine Woodson will cover Berrian, Harris on Rice, and Williams (who is our fastest cb) on Harvin. I think Harvin could do some damage but I’m not to worried about Berrian (who still doesn’t look 100%), and think Harris can handle Rice.

I imagine it will be a close game and will probably come down to our run defense and our oline play. Unfortunately, our run defense has only looked good once this year, and the oline has looked questionable all year. (Though they deserve some credit as they have improved a bit).

I want to think we’ll win but honestly I’m not sure. I would guess it will be decided by 7 or less points.

by packallday555 on Sep 29, 2009 5:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It will be fun

I am looking forward to both teams being on a national stage and highlighting why the NFC North is resurgent and respectable.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Agree

Childress is just not a good coach or leader. It may not affect this game, but it will be the main reason Vikings don’t win SB. What a monkey going back and forth over Favre.

It is like Wade Phillips and Norv Turner. They are great coordinators, but horrible head coaches. The Chargers and Cowboys will do nothing this year, both will be fired.

Re: game, my biggest concern is our ILB’s. They are just not very fast (Hawk) or strong enough (Barnett) to get AD at the sideline. Jolly, Jenkins, Raji, Pickett will do fine. Matthews and Kampman will do well. Our secondary will do well. If the ILB’s suck, we will get hammered.

On offense, for whatever reason it takes our o-line a lot of time to get going. Will probably be ok by week 5 or 6. Pat Williams is old and now can’t use steroids (shocking that he has lost a step suddenly), but there LB core is fast and strong. Tthe Vikes front 7 make the secondary seem a heck of a lot better then it actually is.

AR will hopefully role out of the pocket a lot to buy our team some time and it would be nice if Grant ran behind Quinn Johnson in a power formation over Jared Allen.

by Acme on Sep 29, 2009 8:03 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I forgot to mention

Harvin has one kickoff return for a 101 yard TD this year, but he has been only a step away on a couple of others.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 6:13 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Will be hard

For him to return kicks when Crosby is booming them 6-7 yards deep in the endzone. But he is dangerous when he gets it.

by packallday555 on Sep 29, 2009 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Is Crosby going to be able to drop them that deep with his ab injury?

His kick-offs on Sunday were dropping just short of the goal line.

"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root

by Clutch16 on Sep 29, 2009 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

I like the Vikings to win this game.

And I think it could be by double digits. I wish that weren’t true, but it’s what I think. Minny is just better than GB right now. I’m not sure they will be in 3 months, but right now they’re better. GB will probably choose to sell out to stop AP, and I think that’s the right call. They’ll try to force Favre into turnovers in the hopes that nabbing a couple of picks will tip the balance in their favor. It’s really their only chance.

Because the Vikings DL is going to be in the Packers backfield all day. I love Rodgers but he’s got happy feet and accuracy problems right now (and who can blame him). That and the drops are limiting the impact of the passing game, and the OL’s frequently pathetic blocking is killing the running game. Grant isn’t good enough to make plays on his own when the holes aren’t there. At least not regularly. And the burst we all say in 2007 (remember those long runs?) is gone and doesn’t appear to be coming back anytime soon.

The Packers defensive unit isn’t comfortable in the 3-4 yet and I’m beginning to think they don’t have the personell at the ILB and DL on the roster to run the system at much more than an adequate level. Time will tell. But they haven’t been much more than adequate thus far and they’ve only reached that level because of the turnovers. There isn’t consistent pressure on opposing QBs, the rush defense is softer than it should be given the size of our downlinemen, and Haw just can’t pursue or change direction adequately.

Minny’s just better. Unless Favre turns the ball over. It’s happened before. We’ve all seen it.

The main thing to keep in mind is that no matter how much it feels like it, a loss this week is not the end of the season, let alone the world. Worst case scenario is that we go into the bye 2-2, 1-1 in the division and 2-1 in the conference, despite significant injury problems. We’ll also have one of the most difficult road trips of the season out of the way. Barring injury, I think this team will get better as the season goes on, and there’s no reason to think that a 2-2 record after 4 weeks will be fatal to their playoff chances.

by Ted Simmons Speed Camp on Sep 29, 2009 9:40 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nice post

I think the toughest part of GBP’s schedule is 11/22 – 12/20. What happens now matters, but what happens then will decide the Pack’s season.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 11:05 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

agreed.

2nd half of season is brutal.

our ILB that are starting, Hawk and Barnett, suck as a duo. Have said that all season long.

Hawk is not good. Too slow. He will whiff on AD at least 3 times on Monday.

by Acme on Sep 29, 2009 11:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

You know what?

I appreciate the give and take that true fans can have without the flaming diatribe. Thanks.

by Belarus on Sep 29, 2009 11:18 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

who knows

with the weather we are having already (frost advisories really? its still September!) we may have a foot of snow or 0 degrees by Nov 1. And sorry to bring up all the discussions again but Favre has lost his touch in the cold IMO… I am not just talking about the giants game, but I think he started to decline in the cold back in the 2003 playoff against the Falcons. He is no where near the man that used to be 40-0 when the temp was below 34

by bizzle4 on Sep 30, 2009 12:49 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Pack's schedule vs. Vikes schedule

Regardless of the outcome of this game, I think its important to realize that a win in this game actually means more to the Vikes than it does the Pack. This is the “easy” portion of the Vikes’ schedule and its only going to get a TON harder. If they don’t ride Favre’s freshness to its fully extent right now, there are few predictable victories in the later portion of the year. The Packers, on the other hand, have already beaten the Bears once and still get the Vikings at home (presumably in the cold where Favre sucks). Thus, if the Pack loses this game there is still plenty of time to catch up. But if the Vikes lose, its doesn’t look promising they will ever catch the Pack again.

by Jayrome007 on Oct 2, 2009 12:01 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Call me puzzled...

however, isn’t the first half of the season also the easy part of the Packer’s schedule? I mean, we get to play a slew of the worst teams this season (St. Louis, Detroit, Cleveland, Tampa Bay), all in our first eight games.

Each team in a division plays FOURTEEN of the sixteen games in common. In other words, Green Bay and Minnesota only play two foes that differ. We play Tampa Bay and Dallas, while the Vikings play Carolina and the Giants. We get a slight edge there, but not so much that we will be able to run away and hide if we win on Monday night. The bottom line: Green Bay needs to win as much as Minnesota does.

by NYCPac on Oct 3, 2009 1:53 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Even though it's only two games

I would much rather play Tampa and Dallas than Carolina and New York. Tampa will have a top five pick next year and Dallas hasn’t looked very good. New York on the other hand is looking like one of the best teams in the league and despite Delhomme sucking, Carolina can always be dangerous with Williams, Stewart, and Steve Smith.

by Charlie Kelly on Oct 3, 2009 11:15 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Definition of worst

At the start of the season, I would have said the worst part of the schedule was the early part because, in part, they play Cincinnati in week 2 and Pittsburgh later. Now it might be the other way around. But either way, it’s not a brutal schedule.

And you’re right about the schedule; it’s (essentially) the same for all the NFC North teams. Although I would rather play Tampa and Dallas too.

by Brandon on Oct 3, 2009 6:08 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Both sides confident?

I’d find that surprising. I like to stay confident in my team, but I’m really quite nervous for this game!

by uacheesehead on Sep 29, 2009 6:10 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

I’m not confident. I am nervous, their Dline is the best we’ve face so far which scares me. I just hope the packers are prepared for it with lots of moving pockets. I feel more confident in the game in a few weeks but right now this team looks shaky and that makes me not confident!

by TrevorR on Sep 30, 2009 11:19 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Moving pockets

Will be key. Rodgers will also be able to elude some pass rushes. I’m actually most concerned about K Williams. We can always have a rb help out with Allen, or a TE. Williams tosses people like rag dolls and that’s really not an exaggeration. He makes it look easy out there. Sitton is a big guy, and supposedly very strong but he is no match for K Williams. I just hope he can at least hold his block for 2 seconds.

BTW- When Raji is 100%, he should be throwing people like rag dolls as well :) and I can’t wait to see it.

by packallday555 on Sep 30, 2009 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Oh I'm confident...

but it’s not in the result most Packer fans want to see.

by Danwood on Sep 30, 2009 11:54 AM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

It'll be a good one

for several reasons… and we can speculate and offer opinions all we want AND that IS the exciting part for US!
but until the warriors hit the field and play the game, we’ll just never know.

The teams seem very ‘even’ at the moment for very different reasons – all pointed out in the OP and the comments up there.
I think that ‘eveness’ makes this matchup even more exciting… more exciting than all the dramatic ‘storylines’.

GO VIKES!

I BELIEVE...

by ArizonaVikingsFan on Sep 29, 2009 10:10 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Agreed

Storylines are for the press – this game is intriguing for far more reasons. I think it’ll be a damned good one.

"Who ever heard of the Cubs losing a game they had to have?" -Frank Chance
"If [Ruth] had [called his shot], I would have knocked him down with the next pitch." -Charlie Root

by Clutch16 on Sep 29, 2009 10:13 PM CDT up reply actions   0 recs

Like to see a worthy opponent

The tension in this past Sunday’s game was whether the Packers could keep from doing something really dumb and screwing up more than the Rams. I ended up rooting for Jackson and Kyle Boller to make a game of it, which they didn’t. I can enjoy the Bears when they’re awful, just for the schadenfreude, but otherwise, i want to see a worthy opponent. The Vikings are worthy; it should be a good game.

The spread is Vikings by 3.5, which is just at the point where i wouldn’t want to put money on either team (always a bad idea to bet your team anyway). The over/under is 46. I don’t know about that, either.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Sep 29, 2009 11:53 PM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Shame not on Sunday
Ready for Purple Jesus
And Purple Judas

by chewie on Sep 30, 2009 9:52 AM CDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

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

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Tex1_small
Tex's Friday Preview - Niners
Rubberducky_small
A Quick Update on my Goings-On
10424_528302137858_173702948_31567344_967269_n_small
OT: Bills fire Dick Jauron
Timbreakin_small
Rooting Guide: 11/15
Tex1_small
Tex's Friday Preview - Cowboys
Small
Position Coaches
Small
How Much More can we take?
Packers_small
Time for a Change?
Small
O-Line + D-Line = Recipe for disaster
Zygi_wario_solo_small
Just had to share

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Latest NFL Headlines from SB Nation


Manager

Acmepackingco_small Brandon

Author

Rubberducky_small Mitchell_M

Me_working_foh-icon_small RobertArthur