Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: The Gift Of The 2003 Tigers

Nick Barnett on Twitter

From LB Nick Barnett's Twitter account:

Am sorry I let you guys down... I hurt so bad right now. 

Comment 170 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I saw that

Made me feel bad for the guy. He’s one of the coolest guys on our team, basically the face of our defense (for better or worse) over almost the whole last decade.

by vitaminx on Jan 10, 2010 8:55 PM CST reply actions  

Wow, I'm listening to the post game interviews...

…and the guys sound like they took a body blow. Mike McCarthy really sounded down.

I hope they use this loss as a springboard for next season. I think these guys are young and confident and they will rebound….

by PackFaninFL on Jan 10, 2010 9:23 PM CST reply actions  

Not sure what to think about this team going forward

On one hand, they scored 45 points with a lot of young talent. On the road. On the other hand, they gave up 51 points. They forced only 5 third downs all game. It was perhaps the worst playoff defensive performance to a non-Rams team in the last decade.

I am not sure that this team could make the playoffs if they have a more difficult schedule next season.

by Sand0 on Jan 10, 2010 9:36 PM CST reply actions  

they gave up 45

"I've got news for you. We're gonna win the game. I guarantee it."
Joe Nameth

by Vikant on Jan 10, 2010 9:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Not sure what to think about this team going forward

That’s fine. You have enough to worry about with the Vikings..Aging Pat, Winfield, McKinnie, Hutch, and Leber. Ouch..Plus no Favre, and both Williams and Johnson played really poor for you at the saftey positions, and to add to that Henderson will miss some time next year and might come back as a different player.

by packallday555 on Jan 10, 2010 11:01 PM CST up reply actions  

Not to mention the fact that the Cowboys will win. I see nothing on that Vikings team that says otherwise.

Can’t root for my Pack so I’ll root for the other “America’s Team”.

by pvilleWIcheezhed on Jan 11, 2010 7:20 AM CST up reply actions  

Wow, a Packer fan rooting for the Cowboys

When there is nothing on the line for the pack. Dude, your favre hate truly runs deep.

Either that or, being older than you & remembering the last time(s) the Cowboys mattered, I know Packer fan traditions better than you, that the only team a real Packers fan should possibly hate more than the Cowfelons (yes, using the old school term here) is the Bears. Maybe. If you were a Packer fan 15 years ago, you should truly despise Jerry Jones and his team.

A Packer fan rooting for the Cowboys in the playoffs. Now I have truly seen it all. I thought there might be a silver lining in the Packers being out, and the Vikings having to play the Cowboys, was that it could be a healing opportunity for the Favre haters. Guess not.

by puddnhead on Jan 11, 2010 12:05 PM CST up reply actions  

In fairness

A Packer fan has a hard time deciding to root for ANYBODY when the Vikings and the Cowboys are playing.

I might be reduced to watching NASCAR. On that — can anybody explain the fascination with watching cars drive counterclockwise in a circle? Is it the hope we might see a wreck?

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 12:26 PM CST up reply actions  

haha…that would be a new low. I think I’d probably just read if I was forced to watch Nascar.

by TrevorR on Jan 11, 2010 12:39 PM CST up reply actions  

lol

I know what you mean but … well, I think I’m in hot enough water over here, without pissing off the Matt Kenseth fans, so I’ll just plead the 5th :)

by puddnhead on Jan 11, 2010 12:45 PM CST up reply actions  

they drive which way?

I don’t watch nascar enough to know that much about it. Clockwise, counterclockwise, who really cares? As for the Cowboys, there is definitely NO indifference there. Minnesota and Favre can win one game. Besides, it is Favre we are talking about. All the hating on him has gotten old. He will always be a Packer. I don’t care what jersey he is wearing. Say what you want.

Right now, I’m still upset about the so-called “loss” to the cardinals. Yeah, Barnett might be upset and he might feel like he let us down. I feel for him. Yet he cannot control everything by himself. It is a team sport. Among the things he certainly cannot control are those darn ref calls, or the missed ref calls.

In any case, someone had to win. Turns out…it wasn’t the best team in the NFL.

If only Ted Thompson were gone and Brett Favre were still here, then we would have won 27.4 Super Bowls in a row and cured cancer by now.

by starmark on Jan 12, 2010 1:30 AM CST up reply actions  

I don’t see this as a big deal. The Vikings are a WAY bigger rival of the modern day Packers than the Bears are. Part of it probalby comes down to where you live too. I lived in MN from 1996-2006, then Chicago from 2006-2008, and now back in MN. I feel like the Vikings are a way bigger rival of the Packers these days but all my friends are Viking fans so that might contribute to it. Nothing would make my life more miserable than seeing the Vikings winning in the playoffs. Aside from my friends (and more importantly, my wife) being happy we’d have to endure them coming to our message boards and talking up a storm. Viking fans have actually trumped the bear fans at their own annoying game of talking trash and just being annoying in general.

The idea of cheering for the Cowboys makes me a little sick but the idea of cheering for the Vikings (Favre or no Favre) is something I can’t do. I silently cheered against them last year and I’ll do it again this year. Not everything is about Favre…maybe it is for some, but its not for me. I don’t mind him having success outside the Packers, but I don’t want to see the Vikings successful…ever.

by TrevorR on Jan 11, 2010 12:39 PM CST up reply actions  

I think you are right, maybe it's geographical as well as age-related

I’m from southern WI originally, though I’ve been living in Fox valley more recently, so the Bears have always been the traditional foe for me. And Jim McMahon was way more obnoxious than Randy Moss ever was. And the rivalry was just a lot older, so I inherited it from my parents and grandparents. Tough to do that with a team that hasn’t been around much longer than I have.

If I was younger, and had lived in western WI (or Minny), yeah it would be different. I am in some ways the exact opposite of you. I cheered the Vikings in the playoffs last year, since the Packers were out, even before the Favre connection. And I’ll cheer the Lions probably, if & when they ever get things turned around long enough. Every fan base should get a championship someday. I cheered the Red Sox (the first time, not the second).

Still, I don’t see how anyone can cheer the Boys over the Vikes. The Vikes are a big rival, OK I get that. But the Cowboys are just plain obnoxious self-important jerks, always have been (well, at least since the days Jerry Jones took control of the team away from Tom Landry). To me the Cowboys are like the Yankees. Sure they fell off the radar a bit in WI once the Brewers moved from the AL East to the NL Central, but that didn’t change the fact that the team as a whole always came across as cocky, entitled prima donnas.

by puddnhead on Jan 11, 2010 1:01 PM CST up reply actions  

I grew up in the Fox Valley…Appleton to be exact! My hatred of the bears was immense until I went to college in MN and was constantly bombarded with the hatred from the Viking fans. Luckily my first year there we won the super bowl so I made sure to get the last laugh! haha

I wouldn’t cheer for the Bears or the Vikes…or the Cowboys for that matter. NOt too fond of the Giants either, but I Think that is more of a NY thing. Next week is a tough one. Nothing would make me want to vomit more than watching frickin Jerry Jones get another home game! I want to slap that smile right off his face!

by TrevorR on Jan 11, 2010 1:36 PM CST up reply actions  

As much as I hate Dallas

I have no choice but to hate the Vikings more this week. I hold no animosity toward Favre, but the media worship frenzy should Favre make it back to the Super Bowl this season would make me want to bite down on a cyanide capsule.

I always hated the Bears more than the Vikings as a kid, but ten seasons of almost complete Packer dominance in the 90s softened the spirit of the rivalry more than a little.

by NYCPac on Jan 11, 2010 6:24 PM CST up reply actions  

A lot of younger fans are more avid, I've noticed.

However, I seem to go against that trend. I turned 25 in September, and, well, you saw the post I made the other day thanking you.

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

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jan 12, 2010 12:06 AM CST up reply actions  

Vikings, Bears

are our mortal rivals. Dallas is a notch below. If the Lions ever got better, well maybe.

I’m not rooting for Dallas. I’m rooting against the Vikings (and as Trevor put it, Favre or no Favre).

I’m the kind of Packer fan that looks at lifetime records against the Vikings and Bears and want to make sure the Packers prevail in my lifetime (Vikings pretty even, we need to make up some ground against the Bears).

I’m the kind of Packer fan that was glad the Colts beat the Bears so they wouldn’t have a perfect SB record (still angry at Holmgren for his crucial role in messing up against Denver).

And I’m the kind of Packer fan who will delight in seeing Minnesota go down against a Dallas team I also rather dislike.

Best game I ever attended was the 163rd game last year in 2008.

by NorthSidePaulie on Jan 11, 2010 8:22 PM CST up reply actions  

I remember the Bears (and Cowboys)...

They were bigger rivals to the Packers as I grew up. The Vikings of late seem to be the “trendy” rival. They have certainly been a bigger threat to the Packers recently. Since Brett Favre showed up in Green Bay a million years ago (I remember how bad the Packers were before that…excluding perhaps the one year wonder Don Majkowski—but they failed to make the playoffs that year anyway even with a 10-6 record, Vikings took it), the Packers have practically owned this division every year. Of course there were some off years. Yet more often than not, the Packers were on top. During the four years BEFORE Ted Thompson came in, the Packers won the division 4 times in a row. That is domination. Since then, the Vikings have had their way a little (and some other times of course). Yet this is only relatively recent success. The Bears-Packers rivalry is older than any other in the NFL.

Regardless of recent successes or failures in terms of W/L, I grew up being taught that the Bears were the bad guys. That sticks with me today.

by starmark on Jan 12, 2010 1:57 AM CST up reply actions  

Exactly…those of us that live here experience it first hand!

by TrevorR on Jan 12, 2010 11:23 AM CST up reply actions  

What??

I swear you’re OCD when it comes to Favre. I don’t care what he’s up to these days. The fact I want the Cowboys to win has zero to do with him. I HATE the purple punks as a TEAM. I have since I started watching football. I would be saying this no matter who was playing for them. I had the unfortunate task of having to live in Minneapolis for 5 years so I’m intimately aware of what their fans are like and how they approach football. Trust me, rooting for the Cowboys is the the lesser of two evils. To me, Jerry Jones is Darth Vader in a suit and tie.

If you were a Packer fan 15 years ago, you should truly despise Jerry Jones and his team.

I’ve been a Packers fan for over 30 years. Sigh, I just wasted 5 mins. responding to what amounts to a troll.

by pvilleWIcheezhed on Jan 12, 2010 7:43 AM CST up reply actions  

Vikings heck No!!

Ah Puddnhead,,,, Ive been a Packer fan for 45 years here. I will be cheering on the Cowboys to beat the Vikings, The Bear rivalry has died down a few years ago, Now its the Vikings cause of the traitor on the team. Why would we want a team that took out revenge against us to win in the Dallas , Minn match, Come on now. That was really stupid comment you made to assume that many if any would want the Vikes to win now that the Packers are out. Geesh!!!

by whooya on Jan 13, 2010 7:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Why would a Packer fan “worry” about the Viking’s age problems? I don’t understand the tone of your post.

by Jayrome007 on Jan 11, 2010 8:43 AM CST up reply actions  

A Packer fan would not...

But I am pretty sure that Sand0 is a Viking fan— hence, why packallday turned the issue onto the Viking age issues moving forward.

by NYCPac on Jan 11, 2010 9:25 AM CST up reply actions  

you would be correct.

by TrevorR on Jan 11, 2010 12:40 PM CST up reply actions  

Ah, ok

I see.

I didn’t know he was just trolling. I thought he was a regular here. Thanks for clarifying.

And, yes, the Vikings are old and the Packers are young. Thanks for pointing that out also.

by Jayrome007 on Jan 11, 2010 5:00 PM CST up reply actions  

Seems to be a more difficult schedule.

They get the NFC and AFC East + 2nd place teams in West (SF) and South (Atlanta). At this point, it would seem to be a tougher schedule than NFC West/AFC North + Dallas & TB.

I think the defensive stats were padded by playing crappy teams and crappy offenses. The OL is another question mark. Penciling them in for the playoffs next year is way premature. However, anything could happen between now and September. Kind of pointless talking about it now.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Jan 11, 2010 9:20 AM CST up reply actions  

Schedule is a foolish topic to troll upon with a divisional foe.

The bottom line is that the Vikings and Packers will play the same schedule, except for two foes. If you think that the East divisions are tougher, the bad news for you is that it will affect GB and Min roughly equally.

The only foes that Minnesota and Green Bay will NOT have in common is GB will play San Fran and Atlanta while Minn will get Arizona and New Orleans. Right now, that looks like it would favor GB, but who knows what will happen in the offseason?

by NYCPac on Jan 11, 2010 9:30 AM CST up reply actions   1 recs

I know what will happen this offseason

He will continue to mock these message forums with his furrowed-brow nerd fury, aka trolling

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 11, 2010 9:32 AM CST up reply actions  

yep.

I will probably continue to disagree with homer Packer fans (= “trolling” in their parlance) who want only endless repetition of “Judas sux. OMG Rodgers HOF! I luv TT. Packers rule. Woodson DPOY!”

NYCPac — who mentioned the Vikings? It’s probably a harder schedule for them, too.

by uglyfatpimplynerd on Jan 11, 2010 10:22 AM CST up reply actions  

Enough with the Judas stuff!

Brett Favre is just a person…like you. Are the Packers seriously your religion? Even if it is, Favre betrayed no one. If anything, fans betrayed him.

by starmark on Jan 12, 2010 2:05 AM CST up reply actions  

Just let him do his thing…who cares.

by TrevorR on Jan 12, 2010 11:24 AM CST up reply actions  

You either get it

or you don’t. I’ll say what Brent said; “If you were a true Packer fan you’d understand.”

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 13, 2010 4:45 AM CST up reply actions  

Wrong !!!

Brett planned on going to the Vikings the first time he retired. get it straight. He didnt want to play in GB anymore cause he didnt get the reciever and coach he wanted bottom line !!!

by whooya on Jan 13, 2010 7:22 PM CST up reply actions  

Geesh!!

Im sooo glad that we have Aaron Rodgers . He is a truly Class Act. Way better then Farve, TT made the right decision all the way…

by whooya on Jan 13, 2010 7:24 PM CST up reply actions  

I still support Barnett.

Obviously he knows the defense has a lot of work to do yet. This is the youngest team in the NFL, and it will only get better just as it improved each week following Week 8 this season.

Go Pack!

by Jabooty on Jan 10, 2010 9:37 PM CST reply actions  

Oh wow

Nick has definitely lost a step or three over the years, but he is still an influential leader on this team and seeing that made me feel really bad for the guy. Gotta love Barnett. I still am not going to expect anything out of this team next season…maybe I will be pleasantly surprised if they rebound.

by nymgb44 on Jan 10, 2010 9:46 PM CST reply actions  

really?

are you serious youre throwing in the towel on this team? I think theyll rebound great if they get some CB/DB depth. The Harris injury played a big part and we ran into a hot offensively loaded team today in their home stadium w/ perfect conditions for passing. Its insane to think this team is going to scuttle along like maybe the Bears next year. Step down from the ledge people

Favre 4 Ever
I Believe In Chris Drury
RIP Buddy <3 Love you

by Plusch on Jan 10, 2010 11:43 PM CST up reply actions  

Wow…seriously? Really? The team goes from 6-10 back to 11-5 and suffers a heartbreaking loss where their defense collapses but they rally and almost win and you are not expecting anything?

I don’t get it… at all.

by TrevorR on Jan 11, 2010 12:42 PM CST up reply actions  

he's a Mets fan

… that should explain the pessimism-by-default mentality. ;-)

by swilldog on Jan 11, 2010 1:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Hey.

As my alias suggests, I’m a Cubs fan … and even I’m not that pessimistic about the Packers’ future.

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

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jan 12, 2010 12:09 AM CST up reply actions  

No offense taken.

n/t

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

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jan 12, 2010 9:59 AM CST up reply actions  

too bad this was Barnetts best year on the team

and that these players are young and playing the best football ever under the McCarthy regime

See, this is what happens when the Sox bunt.
Discord is sown. Brother fights brother. Misunderstandings abound.

-TAEG

by blackoutsox on Jan 11, 2010 3:43 PM CST up reply actions  

Barnett

Too bad they couldn’t give you a bigger role to play in today’s package. A few more blitzes would have been nifty. The players who care the most, hurt the most. Come back strong.

by daldog on Jan 11, 2010 1:47 AM CST reply actions  

Chill Nick - ya did great.

Nick, I remember the days of Bart Starr – and you guys are worthy of comparison. I don’t feel the Packers that met the Cardinals yesterday were Super Bowl Champions of 2010,
but I DO believe they are Super Bowl Champions of 2011. I’m not laying the blame on D only, I think Rodgers needs to learn to leave the pocket and pick-up an easy 6 to 8 and step out of the sidelines. Throwing into coverage, or taking the sack from behind is not a valid option. This isn’t the ‘60s or ’70s where a QB got pounded-on after a sack, so the risks aren’t what they were “back-in-the-day”.

by 44N on Jan 11, 2010 6:05 AM CST reply actions  

I remember the days of Bart Starr – and you guys are worthy of comparison

Now, isn’t that a bit much? And also a bit of a sacrilage to that great team?

by Jayrome007 on Jan 11, 2010 8:45 AM CST up reply actions  

They were spying Rodgers all day

Therefore, he couldn’t run. On the final play, he was trying to make a play because he knew our D wasn’t going to stop them. So, it was either a convert or lose situation. Unfortunately, we fell short.

Go Pack!

by Jabooty on Jan 11, 2010 9:54 AM CST up reply actions  

They sure were spying…and they did a freakin GREAT job at it too! wow. Their defense while giving up a lot of yards, was all over Rodgers for a lot of the day.

by TrevorR on Jan 11, 2010 12:43 PM CST up reply actions  

As long as

The Cowboys don’t win and Minnesota doesn’t make it to the Super Bowl… I might somewhat recover from this game…

Yet another playoff classic Green Bay was on the wrong side of… Bugger…. Let’s go Brewers!!

Goooooo-mez!

by Drew C on Jan 11, 2010 7:43 AM CST via mobile reply actions  

I am easily confused

I find it interesting that you like Chicago teams of other sports, yet like the Packers as well. Please do not be offended. I am just making an observation. This is a curiosity to me. Then again, I lived in Missouri for some time during my childhood and I liked the Kansas City Chiefs. Yet I was born in Wisconsin and the Packers will always be my favorite team. I used to say when I was young that the best superbowl would be KC and GB with GB winning in OT by 1 point. heh…

by starmark on Jan 12, 2010 2:14 AM CST up reply actions  

I'm more shocked than anything

I think if they would gotten the ball off the coin toss and scored (Hasselbeck would be jealous first off), but I think I would be depressed. The way it happened, it just sucked all the emotion out of me. It was going to have to be a similar play to that to end it so the other team could have one because both offenses were on a tear and it happened. I’m with you though. This was a punch in the stomach.

"You just don't know understand how frustrating this is"- Kevin Borseth

by TkGoUWGB on Jan 11, 2010 8:41 AM CST up reply actions  

Would you say it hurt more or less than Favre to Webster INT in OT of the NFC Champ game against the Giants?

That was a heartbreak. This is just a bruise.

by Jayrome007 on Jan 11, 2010 8:48 AM CST up reply actions  

yes,

but I just felt that this team had SO much potential for this season.

Packers done...3 months of sports hell.

by OznCoop on Jan 11, 2010 8:49 AM CST up reply actions  

I think the refs

made a horrible decision when they decided not to call blatant penalties in the most heated moment of battle.

Quit saying “most” or “you” Packer fans, blanket statements never made anyone look smart. I know I have said I think Brent lost that game, but most people I have talked to disagree with me.

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 11, 2010 9:28 AM CST up reply actions  

Against the Giants?

Brent did lose that game for us. Why would anyone disagree?

Go Pack!

by Jabooty on Jan 11, 2010 9:57 AM CST up reply actions  

They love Brent

or they didn’t see what we saw

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 11, 2010 10:18 AM CST up reply actions  

Stick to the point.

Brett Favre made a lousy decision in overtime and threw an interception while trying to make a play. It cost the Packers a chance to go to the Super Bowl, and it has caused witless fatheads to misspell his name intentionally.

Yesterday, Aaron Rodgers made a lousy decision by holding the ball on a three-step drop and hoping that something else became available. He was trying to make a play, but instead he fumbled and cost the Packers a chance to go to the next round of the playoffs.

How do you spell his name?

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 11:06 AM CST up reply actions   1 recs

HE got facemasked and had pressure

Favre had all day and threw that pick it the NFC Game. HUGE difference.

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 11:08 AM CST up reply actions  

agreed

Favre had all day. Rodgers knew he had one and only one chance to make a play, unfortunately it didn’t work out.

Go Pack!

by Jabooty on Jan 15, 2010 2:35 PM CST up reply actions  

BRENT the traitor

threw a knuckle ball to the only guy on the field who was covered. Arog got sacked, stripped, face masked, and his o-line let him down. Do I wish he could have held onto the ball.. ? Ya think? Two totally difference scenarios, same result, Packers lose, you’re still an assclown.

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 11, 2010 11:17 AM CST up reply actions  

Please Learn Football

The ball was supposed to be out. Rodgers got smeared because he didn’t get the ball out. He didn’t get the ball out because the play that was called wasn’t available. Because that play wasn’t available, he held the ball and hoped something else would become available. He had a thrree-step drop, so he didn’t have time to wait, particularly because he was responsible for seeing to it that he didn’t get sacked by the blizting DB. The sack is on Rodgers. Again, however, I don’t blame him because he was trying to make a play.

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 11:57 AM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Please Learn Something

Rodgers did his three step and was smeared. West Coast offense is timing and separation. When the free blitzer came in unchecked and hit Rodgers, the ball came out. It didn’t look to me like there was a good option available, or maybe Rodgers was trying to look off coverage, but no one saw the blitz, with the stunt, and he was hit immediately. Maybe he should have seen him blitzing, but to blame this on Rogers is typical of what nonsense you were spewing earlier in the season.

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 11, 2010 12:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Looking off defenders on a slant/quick out with a three-step drop?

Interesting strategy, but would likely result in a sack and a fumble.

You are correct that there wasn’t a play available — that’s why he was supposed to throw it away. He had time to do that. It was Rodgers’ fault he got sacked because he didn’t want to throw the ball away. It’s the same problem he had at the beginning of the year that he started to address after the fifth safety. I like that he tried to make a play, but this was a bad decision, just as Favre’s panic-heave was a bad decision. Simple as that. My point, though, is that double standards are tough.

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 1:19 PM CST up reply actions  

You should like, watch it

Because you’re wrong

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 13, 2010 4:12 AM CST up reply actions  

I get ya

You think he should have threw it away. Well, the defense wasn’t going to stop Warner, so then we’d be bashing Rodgers for throwing it away. If Rodgers would have threw an interception with the pressure, I’d understand too. He was under pressure. Point is, Favre was not under pressure, he clearly made a terrible decision that simply made it more depressing.

Go Pack!

by Jabooty on Jan 15, 2010 2:38 PM CST up reply actions  

Is that necessary?

Can you make a point without insulting someone?

by starmark on Jan 12, 2010 2:36 AM CST up reply actions  

Also, he isn't wrong

About anything. Ever

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 13, 2010 4:13 AM CST up reply actions  

I am with you for once here ktenreb. They were both bad plays that I wish didn’t happen…there is no point in turning completely on Favre. He made a bad throw…Rodgers made one in the 4th too taht shoulda/coulda been picked and wasn’t (thank God). But the fact of the matter is that we didn’t win. This game can’t really be blamed on Rodgers though, he did everything he could to win that game for us. The D was atrocious!

by TrevorR on Jan 11, 2010 12:47 PM CST up reply actions  

You've agreed with me in the past

Usually, when you calm down and think like a genuine football player (your having played QB helps you enormously) you get past the homerism that unfortunately dominates this site.

Rodgers didn’t lose the game. He made a bad decision that directly led to the winning points, but you are correct, the defensive scheme is what lost the game. You can’t win when you give up 51 points (it was a freaking basketball score!).

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 1:21 PM CST up reply actions  

The defensive scheme seemed so poor against the Cardinals. I kept wondering how many times it was going to take for us to adjust to that stack formation they kept running but to my surprise it never happened…All the blown assignments were also painful to see. If we get torched simply because our guys physically can’t get it done then fine. But when we’re getting torched because guys aren’t doing what they should be, things are awfully frustrating.

by packallday555 on Jan 11, 2010 9:13 PM CST up reply actions  

Yes people would and have disagreed. While ktenreb makes a valid point regarding the ends of our last 2 playoff games, you have to look at what both guys did earlier in those games.

Favre really could never get anything going against the Giants and looked uninterested. Rodgers got stuff going and got us back into the game from 21 points down.

I personally still think and have always thought Favre lost the game for us against the NY Giants in 07’. And I don’t think Rodgers is to blame for the loss yesterday despite his crucial mistake. It’s just hard to blame a loss on a Qb when the team gives up 45 points.

by packallday555 on Jan 11, 2010 9:07 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Rodgers didn't lose us the game

The defense lost us the game. Rodgers tried to make a play in the end with pressure in his face. It was either he makes a play, or lets Warner lead another game winning drive which would have been inevitable.

Go Pack!

by Jabooty on Jan 15, 2010 2:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Because he did not lose that game

Last I checked there were 11 men on the field for each team. While the QB does have the ball in his hand for most of the game, the rest of the team has to do their jobs too. I saw that game and it looked like a young team not ready to play in the cold. They gave up. Brett Favre (and Donald Driver too) played his heart out and seemed to be the only one still trying to win. I don’t fault him for that. If the rest of the team gave up on you, of course Favre might try to force it to the only other guy still giving it his all.

Mike McCarthy did not know how to prepare and never made the right adjustments. The coaching staff was outcoached. Favre did not lose that game. Everyone else lost the game for Favre. They should have won the Super Bowl already if not for Ted Thompson’s stupid decisions. The Favre haters leapt for joy when he threw that interception. And you are loving it now. I hope he goes on to the superbowl this year even if that means the Vikings win. And believe me, I have NO love for the Vikings. I simply think that you Favre haters need to relax and let go of your hate for a little while. Maybe watching him hoist that trophy over his head one more time might make you stop watching sports for a bit. And maybe that is what you need.

by starmark on Jan 12, 2010 2:26 AM CST up reply actions  

The Favre haters leapt for joy when he threw that interception.

That is patently absurd. No true Packer fan was happy to see that interception ending that conference championship game.

by NYCPac on Jan 14, 2010 12:34 AM CST up reply actions  

I sure as hell wasn’t. I still loved Favre at that point but I did still think the game was on his shoulders. It didn’t take me until the offseason to all of the sudden put the blame on him.

by packallday555 on Jan 14, 2010 12:00 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not a Favre hater, I'm a Packer fan

Therefore, I will never chear for Favre as long as he wears purple. I agree, the team didn’t play as good as it should have, but Favre had the final decision with all day in the pocket.

Go Pack!

by Jabooty on Jan 15, 2010 2:44 PM CST up reply actions  

We lost because

Rodgers was OK but was off just a little all game. The deep ball in OT. The amazing catch by Jennings in the end zone isn’t a catch if that isn’t a great WR. Numerous other passes that weren’t placed well which contributed to a few of the drops.

Every little thing that could have went wrong did go wrong.

The refs missed a few game-changing calls. Woodson being barreled over by Fitz, helmet to helmet hit on Rodgers when Warner had a roughing the passer call go for him when someone breathed on him, etc…

But the number one reason we lost was 3 turnovers and the worst defensive performance in a playoff game ever.

by Superelkman on Jan 11, 2010 4:09 PM CST up reply actions  

The yare both the same to me. I had written both teams off at a few points in each game. Both had missed opportunities by the other team to put us away and then they both ended with heartbreak on the last play.

by TrevorR on Jan 11, 2010 12:45 PM CST up reply actions  

Well that's a silly question

For a few reasons:

-This was to move on in the playoffs. That was for the Super Bowl
-This was on the road. That was at home.
-This was a bizarre play. That was something we saw for 17 years.

"You just don't know understand how frustrating this is"- Kevin Borseth

by TkGoUWGB on Jan 11, 2010 8:14 PM CST up reply actions  

THIS

See, this is what happens when the Sox bunt.
Discord is sown. Brother fights brother. Misunderstandings abound.

-TAEG

by blackoutsox on Jan 11, 2010 10:06 PM CST up reply actions  

Thanks. But I still don’t know where you stand on the issue. Your points seem to be for both sides.

by Jayrome007 on Jan 11, 2010 11:02 PM CST up reply actions  

Seriously

Both were punch in the stomachs, but the 2007 game was worse because it meant more, it was at home, and it was something Brett did for 17 years that drove us nuts and we crucify him for on this blog. Last night was for the right to go back on the road for one more game, maybe two more games, and it was just a weird play. Weird plays happen.

Oh and since blackoutsox wants another This statement apparently, here’s the statement that sticks out like a sore thumb.

THIS was for the right to go to the divisional round. THAT was for the SUPER BOWL. I hope this clears that up.

"You just don't know understand how frustrating this is"- Kevin Borseth

by TkGoUWGB on Jan 11, 2010 11:19 PM CST up reply actions  

That was like me after the playoff game against the Giants in 2007.

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

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jan 11, 2010 11:17 AM CST up reply actions  

I just love how Brent

has made every Viking fan personally vested in our team now, though, unlike last time we got knocked from the Playoffs

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 11, 2010 11:19 AM CST up reply actions  

I’m not sure what you mean by that, but as a Viking’s fan I’ve always been invested in your team. If the Vikings aren’t playing the next team I cheer for is whomever is playing the Packers (and I’d imagine you’d say the same about the Bears or Vikings). I’ve probably seen a large majority of their games every year.

by Jayrome007 on Jan 11, 2010 4:59 PM CST up reply actions  

For me

I was like OznCoop yesterday, but I cried when we lost that 2007 game, which is what I did when we lost the Super Bowl in 1998.

"You just don't know understand how frustrating this is"- Kevin Borseth

by TkGoUWGB on Jan 11, 2010 8:18 PM CST up reply actions  

I cried at the stadium when we lost that game in 2007

now Ware can mangle Farves arm for all I care

See, this is what happens when the Sox bunt.
Discord is sown. Brother fights brother. Misunderstandings abound.

-TAEG

by blackoutsox on Jan 11, 2010 10:06 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah, I was in tears after that game, too.

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

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jan 12, 2010 12:16 AM CST up reply actions  

I hope Brandon opens up a new thread...

call it the “decompression chamber” thread…the post traumatic stress disorder thread, the monday blues thread or something…we need a new thread to just vent…man I am more depressed over this loss than maybe even the Philly lost, because I feel we could have made some SERIOUS NOISE in these playoffs

by PackFaninFL on Jan 11, 2010 8:41 AM CST reply actions  

I just read Kurt

was 21 of 22 with all five scores between the numbers. Why was the middle so open all game long, especially if they were in nickle and dime formations with little to no pressure?

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 11, 2010 9:49 AM CST reply actions  

That terriotory usually is the domain of...

the safeties and inside linebackers. Ergo, the injuries that robbed the Pack of secondary depth would seem most likely to impact in the middle of the field. But that is merely my non-expert thought on the topic.

by NYCPac on Jan 11, 2010 9:55 AM CST up reply actions  

Our LBs are quick and Bigby

wasn’t hurt till late, so where was the coverage breakdown? Where was the adjustment? If you see a team doing something over and over, where is the vaunted zone blitz or psycho package? We’re losing the game, take some risks.
Sorry for the rant, I’m still so stunned. I feel the better team lost/was robbed.

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 11, 2010 10:17 AM CST up reply actions  

One player

Jerrett Bush—— multiple blown assignments, can’t cover. As I predicted—- he was the single hand downfall of the team in my mind

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 11:27 AM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Bigby too

And Collins., And Tramon Williams. Bigger problem was scheme. Look back at the season — good quarterbacks (Tony Romo does not qualify) tore the secondary apart all year long.

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 11:59 AM CST up reply actions  

Yep, Bigby really struggled yesterday as well.

by packallday555 on Jan 11, 2010 9:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Everybody on defense struggled

The scheme didn’t help either. There was nobody ever covering the middle of the field it seemed like.

Go Pack!

by Jabooty on Jan 15, 2010 2:47 PM CST up reply actions  

No way…this wasn’t about Bush…this was a complete defensive meltdown. They found a formation that made us vulnerable and ran it all day and we couldn’t stop it. Credit the Cards…actually credit the Steelers.

by TrevorR on Jan 11, 2010 12:49 PM CST up reply actions  

it wasn't *just* about Bush

But it was about him a lot of the time. He really was that horrible.

But you’re right that there were multiple issues in midfield coverage. The defensive scheme failed, and there probably wasn’t an available counter scheme to run given the personnel on hand.

by swilldog on Jan 11, 2010 1:24 PM CST up reply actions  

In case

you didn’t notice Trev, they rushed 4 and sometime 5 this time after learning from the steeler game and the pressure still didn’t get there. Warner got rid of the ball fast .You got to have guys that can cover, at least a little bit. Bush got burned for 2 TD’s midfield and about 5 other plays to boot. This was IMO a bit about personel, our team wouldn’t have even made it this far if it was not for Caper’s “scheme”

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 3:53 PM CST up reply actions  

They didn't learn much

Good quarterbacks ripped the Packers apart all year long, even before Harris got hurt. Tony Romo is not a good quarterback. It was the scheme. You have three pro-bowlers in the secondary (Harris, Woodson, Collins), so you really can’t ask for more talent. Most teams have none.

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 3:58 PM CST up reply actions  

First of all

Harris is nott in the pro-bowl and Woodson and Collins can’t cover 4 wides by themselves

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 4:01 PM CST up reply actions  

Let me guess

Your name used to be “FavreSucks” didn’t it?

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 5:24 PM CST up reply actions  

No

and the name is for humor. I have been here for awhile. And generally a good sport til I get dick’s like you giving me crap just becaue I choose a funny screen name. Here is your “facemask” proof.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/These-refs-will-never-be-accused-of-coddling-the?urn=nfl,212716

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 6:26 PM CST up reply actions  

I linked to that on another online profile.

That one also gives a strong case for a roughing the passer the play before.

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

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Jan 12, 2010 12:12 AM CST up reply actions  

I'll never get it

A huge % of the team does not show up in the last two playoff games, and there are always fans that want to find one guy to stick the blame to. Two years ago it was Favre, now here turd is looking for someone else.

Was Bush responsible for rushing the passer? Warner does not move around a lot, he should have been more hurried. Was that Bush’s fault that he wasn’t?

by puddnhead on Jan 11, 2010 1:05 PM CST up reply actions  

I'll never get it either

They could have blitzed all day and it would have done nothing. Warner was getting rid of the ball in less than 3 seconds. They could have sent everyone on the team and he still would have got the ball off. YOU HAVE TO HAVE GUYS THAT CAN COVER. I realize football is a team sport, but bush was horrible

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 3:44 PM CST up reply actions  

You can try to blame bush all you want but there were plenty of balls thrown at the guy Tramon was on as well as guys covered by LB. To even try to remotely blame it on Bush is ridiculous. This team, the secondary as a whole, had a complete meltdown. Period.

by TrevorR on Jan 11, 2010 8:18 PM CST up reply actions  

I saw bush getting torched

early douchette made him look like a veil blowing in the wind

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 13, 2010 4:20 AM CST up reply actions  

^

I see what you did there…funny guy ;-)

by TrevorR on Jan 13, 2010 9:20 AM CST up reply actions  

Yeah, the pass rush was a problem but it’s kind of hard to expect them to do much when Warner is able to get the ball out in no more then 3 seconds the majority of the time. We a better pass rusher to compliment Clay on the right side for sure.

by packallday555 on Jan 11, 2010 9:21 PM CST up reply actions  

+1

I was telling everyone down in Chicago that the Packers hinge on whether the Cardinals attacked Jarrett Bush. Bush does not perform in big games. If he falls on a couple fumbles in 2007, we’re in the Super Bowl. He’s an overconfident player that fails week in and week out. He’s solid on special teams…that’s it.

"You just don't know understand how frustrating this is"- Kevin Borseth

by TkGoUWGB on Jan 11, 2010 8:21 PM CST up reply actions  

We tried a couple zone blitzes but when we did guys were blowing assignments (Bush, mainly) and Warner was torching us. The psycho package made an appearance late but that didn’t slow the Cardinals down one bit either.

It didn’t seem like Capers made any adjustments throughout the game though, which is frustrating.

by packallday555 on Jan 11, 2010 9:17 PM CST up reply actions  

Great question.

That stat doesn’t surprise me at all. The middle was open all day and I mean wide open. What is the fix here? Pitt and AZ exposed a huge weakness.

Some people say the glass is half empty, some say half full. I say, are you going to drink that?

by BleedsbluinMI on Jan 11, 2010 11:13 AM CST up reply actions  

Because Capers kept running zones, and the Cardinals WRs kept finding openings in the middle of the field. As well as guys being in the wrong spots in our zones…Our LBs don’t get very good when we play zone coverages.

by packallday555 on Jan 11, 2010 9:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Still not over it.

I can usually shrug off anything better than a complete shoe-ing, but I’ve spent the day feeling like I’ve just finished a spell crying like a toddler. Weird…

by rudi on Jan 11, 2010 11:14 AM CST reply actions  

Next Year, Baby!

These guys should be proud. Every other team that was down early, went down early. You cannot question the heart of this team. A few steps should be taken to fix a few weaknesses, but I think it’s less an issue of personnel than it is hard work in the offseason (though it might not hurt to have some more depth!).

With all the injuries, all the doubt, the fact that they did what they did and fought hard every step of the way was a reminder to me what Packers pride is all about and I’m proud to be a fan of this team.

Next year, these Packers are going to be scary good. Watch.

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." - Vince Lombardi

by AdamA on Jan 11, 2010 1:41 PM CST reply actions  

Great Season--The Ref's "Non-Call" ended it...Not Barnett

Mr. Barnett—-You really have nothing to be down about..I truly believe the Ref’s Blew it with the non-Face Mask Call and the Helmet to helmet non-call. Rodgers would have driven us for a score and the win. You will be even better next year and we will get to the Super Bowl!! I have been a Packer Fan since 1958 when the record was 1-10-1.. I think under Bengston as head coach. I have been through the Good Times and the Bad and will NEVER—NEVER give up on the Packers !!! I do however wish Brett Favre the best and I hope he takes the Vikes to the Super Bowl and wins it all…Let’s face it Brett has a place in every TRUE Packer Fans Heart!!
THE PACK WILL BE BACK—And Thanks Mr. Barnett and the rest of the team for a great RUN and Great Season!!!

by Buddyruff on Jan 11, 2010 3:30 PM CST reply actions  

Um

The league issued a formal statement this afternoon that there was no legitimate face mask call to be made here according to NFL rules, after exhaustive examination of replays.

You really need to get beyond focusing on not getting a wrong, phantom call. the real problem was not what the Zona defense got away with against the Packer offense. the problem is what the supposed #2 defense failed to do against the Zona offense: namely, punt away more than once in the game, and get Warner to have less than a 154 passer rating.

by puddnhead on Jan 11, 2010 4:04 PM CST up reply actions  

Brett will have a place in my heart

five years after he hangs it up for good. Until then, he is the scum of the earth.

"stay (green and) gold"

by Green and Bold on Jan 12, 2010 12:45 AM CST up reply actions  

I agree

well, it’ll probably take 10 years for me. argh, prima donna’s!

Go Pack!

by Jabooty on Jan 15, 2010 2:51 PM CST up reply actions  

haha wow

thats great to hear!

See, this is what happens when the Sox bunt.
Discord is sown. Brother fights brother. Misunderstandings abound.

-TAEG

by blackoutsox on Jan 11, 2010 7:16 PM CST up reply actions  

THats a fun one to hear…I think we’ve got a real baller on our hands. This Rodgers kid has got IT.

by TrevorR on Jan 11, 2010 8:21 PM CST up reply actions  

UmUm

I should really know better than to argue with a vikings fan but that is pointless. Yeah, the BACK JUDGE is supposed to WATCH THE BALL AND ONLY THE BALL but that arguement does NOT FLY when there are OTHER REF’S on the field watching for penalties. We could do a poll if you wish, they blew it. But Iam going to get over it. Not because of you though, or whatever bogus statments you make. There were officials, analysts, ex- coaches and everyone else but you along with those of us who have been watching football for 30 years who knew it was a facemask. A painful loss and you got to come on and be a &^(% %$#*

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 4:18 PM CST reply actions  

Sigh

There was an explicit rule change at the start of the 2008 season. It was published 16 months ago. it wasn’t just made up today. I don’t doubt that there were lots of blogggers, writer,s and commentators, and their dogs also that were looking at this play in the context of the pre-2009 rules, but they are irrelevant, those have not been in force since February.

Here is the the summary of the relevant rule change from NFL.com, dated 16 months ago:

nfl.com 2008 rule change summary

" Incidental facemasks: The foul for incidental grasp and release of the facemask has been eliminated. Twisting, turning or pulling the facemask will remain a 15-yard personal foul.

by puddnhead on Jan 11, 2010 5:12 PM CST up reply actions  

Who is this turd guy?

I’ve stayed away from this forum for the past few weeks. I don’t remember turd. Is he always such a shoot-from-the-hip dumbass?

The referees were awful yesterday, for both teams, but the “face mask” call was one they got right. The rule has changed.

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 5:15 PM CST up reply actions  

I have been on since OCT

and I have not seen you either. The name is just a handle for humor. I am a fan. Not a Favre worshipper. Yeah, I get critical of the packers just like any fan. And with the team that I have been watching since I was a kid, I am going to say something about a face mask. I don’t give a crap about the disagreement, but having an opinion about a facemask then having vikings fans Favre worshippers give me crap about an opinion is Bullshit. Just go back to the Norseman and get on your knee’s to blow Favre.

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 5:31 PM CST up reply actions  

Please Understand Football

Hitting a QB above the shoulder pads is an automatic personal foul, not to mention twisting his face mask. Since the foul occured before Dansby caught the ball, if the correct call were made, it would have been Packers ball with a first down.

Again, you are incorrect. I’ve caught you wrong twice, just like you said Rodgers had time, but you fail to notice the free blitzer who hits him immediately.

Please stop pretending to be an intelligent and insightful poster and take your malevolence and glib back over to the Vajeens site

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 13, 2010 4:29 AM CST up reply actions  

He WAS pulled

This isn’t just being a Homer—- look at the pic. When you see a guy’s helmet touching his friken nose and you can see his eye balls that was a good “pull” I can’t help it if you didn’t see it. But there are pictures all over. That was home cooked ref call if I ever saw one. I read the rule — it’s not what happened, I’m not happy about it. I voiced it, but yet you have to come to a packers fan page and be a dick. Thats right, a straight up fucking dick. I don’t give a shit at this point if I get kicked off. YOUR A FUCKING DICK.

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 5:23 PM CST up reply actions  

Twaddle

While your vocabulary is limited, I see that you are enthusiastic in your views. Perhaps you will retain such enthusiasm after you graduate from the 7th grade. As you pursue your studies, I suggest that you invest more time learning the art of rhetoric. Vocabulary flash cards would be a good starting point.

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 5:29 PM CST up reply actions  

You must be mistaken

While I can see how you and vikings fans cantaminate the gene pool with your degeneracy. I am sure spell check and a thesaurus make you look like a genius.

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 5:36 PM CST up reply actions  

Actually

It’s the Notre Dame Law School education that makes me appear intelligent. Because I am. You, on the other hand . . . . .

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 5:45 PM CST up reply actions  

You can be whoever you want online

But I would have been more creative than a Notre Dame Law School Grad. Talk about the scum of the earth LOL

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 5:57 PM CST up reply actions  

Just sticking to the truth

HOw about you? A 7th grader? Or do you work night shift at the 7-11?

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 5:59 PM CST up reply actions  

here's a thought

why don’t the both of you STFU on this line of “discussion”?

by swilldog on Jan 11, 2010 6:17 PM CST up reply actions  

Swill

you are right. I am Sorry. I should know better.

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 6:31 PM CST up reply actions  

You misunderstood the quote there...

The rule eliminated incidental facemask, yes. But in turn they made touching the facemask a 15 yarder. They wanted to cut down on the subjective nature of calling an incidental vs. personal foul. So now all facemask calls are 15 yarders.

Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge

by Bush League All Star on Jan 11, 2010 5:35 PM CST up reply actions  

That's not what it says!

Read the example given immediately following the rule. It most certainly does NOT say that ANY touching of the face mask is a 15-yarder.

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 5:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Well we technically both right.

Touching is not a great word to use. My wording left much to be desired. But what you left out is the part where the player who touches (or NFL wording: grasp, twists, turns in incidental fashion) must release the facemask to avoid penalty. I am trying to dig up the NFL officiating films on the NFL network where they discuss the implications on this.

Bottom line is that this was a facemask penalty. I don’t care ultimately because the Packers should have won the game instead of leaving it in the hands of officiating in the first place.

Best Link I could find regarding the plays

Looking to buy: General Manager Deputy Badge

by Bush League All Star on Jan 11, 2010 5:58 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm with you in the end

I grew up in the middle part of Wisconsin in the 60s and 70s. I suffered through Dan Devine (his dog was shot because it was killing chickens), Bart Starr (great offenses, lousy defenses), Forrest Gregg (just plain lousy), etc. I remember Starr, in particular, being a huge whiner — on his weekday show (I think it was on Tuesdays), he would show game film and then complain about officiating. My grandfather, who was the biggest Packer fan of all time, told me “Winners win. Whiners lose.” He was right — it’s as simple as that.

I don’t think the play deserved a penalty flag and I certainly don’t think the team lost the game because of the non-call. I thank the Packers for pulling together a fine season (it surprised me, particularly after the Tampa Bay fiasco), and I hope that next year is even better.

by ktenreb on Jan 11, 2010 6:05 PM CST up reply actions  

oh yeah

Starr was definetly a whiner, not a winner

See, this is what happens when the Sox bunt.
Discord is sown. Brother fights brother. Misunderstandings abound.

-TAEG

by blackoutsox on Jan 11, 2010 7:19 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm still proud of Rodgers

for being a professional and downgrading the missed call. Missed calls are part of the game, it happens. Too bad it happened at the most crucial time of the game, but life goes on. Rodgers is a true professional for downgrading the entire situation and moved on. Can’t wait to watch this guy next year.

Go Pack!

by Jabooty on Jan 15, 2010 2:56 PM CST up reply actions  

ooooo he's getting emotional

 Careful, we wouldn’t want to upset the Notre Dame Law School guy. LOL

by GBfan73 on Jan 11, 2010 5:59 PM CST up reply actions  

Cowboys vs. Vikings

I don’t know if this makes me not a Packers fan as much as you old timers but I would much rather have the Vikings lose. They are in our division and I would much rather have them lose especially with Favre as their QB.

Either way I don’t want either of them to make the Super Bowl so I will be rooting for New Orleans and Indy to be in it.

by Superelkman on Jan 11, 2010 4:21 PM CST reply actions  

Just heal and come back stronger.

Thank you Nick. Hope all the Pack take some time and really let it sink in. I believe you guys will come back stronger.It was a really great year, become a family and go get IT next year.

by lsvgold on Jan 11, 2010 5:55 PM CST reply actions  

I am 20, have lived in MN for the last 8 years

and I hate the Vikings more than anything else on this planet. I can’t decide if it would be more fitting for them to lose in this first game, or wait until they get to the Super Bowl and choke. Either way, I want it to end on a Favre “gun-slinger” mistake.

"stay (green and) gold"

by Green and Bold on Jan 12, 2010 12:38 AM CST reply actions  

no way do I want to see them in the Super Bowl. I would be fine with them losing the NFC Championship game though…watching a Vikign Super Bowl would SUCK though.

by TrevorR on Jan 12, 2010 11:28 AM CST up reply actions  

I hope they lose this weekend because then technically, the 2009 Vikings weren’t even as good as the 2007 Packers, let alone the 1996 Packers like Favre had alluded to earlier.

by packallday555 on Jan 12, 2010 6:42 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

Is there anyone

you won’t mock or talk down too?
Clearly there isn’t

"I don't know how a guy gets single covered in that situation when you're dropping eight men," Tony Dungy, 12/20/09

by PackaCracka on Jan 13, 2010 11:46 AM CST up reply actions  

Opinions are opinions. There is no way to prove one team is better than the other…its pointless to insult him because you disagree on something that is pure speculation.

by TrevorR on Jan 13, 2010 2:07 PM CST up reply actions  

Haha it wasn’t really a serious comment man..There was just a lot of talk about it earlier, and it’s something my “Vikings fans” bring up a lot too me. Just settle down a bit.

Sometimes it seems like anyone who doesn’t share the same view as you, is automatically labeled as a “homer” or “unintelligent”…

Again the comment was on the joking side, and is pretty much pure speculation which is why I said “technically” we would be considered better. Obviously, the only reason to really determine which team is better would be to have the two play but obviously that would never happen.

by packallday555 on Jan 13, 2010 10:43 PM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

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

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Gassertaylor_small
APC Open Thread #33: Ron Dayne Thread? Why Not?
Packer_brewer_badger_logo_small
The APC Helmet Logo Bracket Tournament: Final Four

Recent FanPosts

03112008811_small
Clearing Cap Space & Roster Spots!
Pack_small
Current Cap Situation
03112008811_small
Wow... Won't Ever Doubt TT Again... (Of course I will... : )
Small
When And Why
Small
Where were you?
Ukcat_small
How about a little love for Cobb!!!
Jordy_nelson_small
MVP baby!
Football-funny-pic_small
NFL could add two new teams

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Manager

Acmepackingco_small Brandon

Author

Rubberducky_small Mitchell Maurer

Ayrton_senna_1988_canada_small Vermont Cubs Fan

Texbucky_small texwestern

Gassertaylor_small OBrienSchofieldismyHero

Img00243_small Kevin McCauley