Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Dallas Cowboys Projects: Aston Whiteside

Packers Offense Recap In Victory Over 49ers: Meet James Starks

Just another great game by the Green Bay Packers offense with 410 total yards and 34 points. The 49ers had the No. 10 overall defense according to Football Outsiders coming into this game, so this was no easy target. QB Aaron Rodgers had his 4th straight game with a completion percentage of over 70%. His lowest quarterback rating over that four game span was 114.5 (his highest was 141.3).

The big surprise was the appearance of rookie 6th round RB James Starks. Prior to this game, he hadn't played any football since 2008, and I didn't expected he'd get many carries. Instead he had two on their first drive and 18 overall. According to the Packers twitter, his 78 rushing yards were the most by a rookie RB in his first game since 1948.

When Starks was drafted, I expected he'd be used to play the role of RB Ryan Grant, if needed, and I didn't expect he'd be a 3rd down type of back. At 6'2" and 218 lbs., he's almost the same stature as Grant, and he even has a similar upright running style. His strength and speed past the line of scrimmage are similar too, but he didn't (yet) show the ability to make defenders miss. He didn't show Grant's vision with which he could turn a good gain into a 20+ yard run. 

More after the jump, and more on this game from Niners Nation.

Star-divide

Four Quarters

The first drive was a good mix of pass and run to get the ball down to the 49ers 6 yard line, 1st-and-goal. Then the drive stalled with a couple incompletions, and finally a missed 29 yard field goal. A fourteen play drive that eats up over seven minutes, and leaves you with zero points, is very unsatisfying. When the offense went three-and-out on their next series, it felt like the offense was out of sync. 

Another three-and-out started the second quarter. WR James Jones almost seemed to give up on a deep ball that was just a couple of feet away, after he had beaten the cornerback deep. With almost 20 minutes gone by, WR Greg Jennings only had 10 yards and I wanted them to get him involved. Soon after, apparently Rodgers heard my thoughts, he connected on a 57 yard touchdown pass to Jennings. He had only beaten the cornerback by a step (which was just enough) and then fought through the safety for the final few yards into the end zone. On their next drive, they took advantage of a short field that left them needing only 50 yards, and scored on FB John Kuhn's 1 yard touchdown run. Kuhn's stat line wasn't impressive (6 carries for 13 yards), but he was four-for-four converting on 3rd down, plus that touchdown. He did exactly what they needed from him in short yardage. They had one more change for a last second score in the half, but a rare streak of three incompletions forced them to punt. 

The third quarter was another quarter for big pass plays. First was the 61 yard touchdown pass to WR Donald Driver, when he ran through several tackles for the score. Second was a 48 yard reception by Jennings down the middle to the 49ers 3 yard line. Jennings was then left open for a 1 yard touchdown pass to the right a couple minutes later.

The fourth quarter started with a drive that began in the third quarter. After a 20 yard punt return set up good field position again, they convert a couple times on 3rd down to drive for another field goal to pad their lead. After the 49ers fifth three-and-out, the Packers ran a lot on a 17 play, 8:35 epic drive that ate up the clock and led to another lead padding field goal. QB Matt Flynn came in on the final drive to take a knee and end the game. 

Individual Analysis

Aaron Rodgers. I mention him nearly every week, and for good reason. He did take a couple sacks while in field goal range, and committed an intentional grounding penalty in the 1st quarter. But he was nearly flawless otherwise, and his deep passes to Jennings were great. 

Greg Jennings. His hot streak continues with another six catch game, and his two touchdown receptions push his total up to eleven on the year.

James Starks. I wrote about him at the beginning of this post. An impressive debut.

Donald Driver. That 61 yard touchdown reception was a thing of beauty. Get out of his way!

The offensive line. They had a lousy run blocking game last week against Falcons, but they kept the 49ers out of the backfield, and gave Starks and RB Brandon Jackson some room to work with. The stats showed 4 sacks allowed, but those were as much coverage sacks as anything. Arguably their best game as a group this season.

Comment 168 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Yeah

It was awesome. It’s great to have a 100% Driver back on the field, we are going to need him.

by Puddleglumed on Dec 6, 2010 12:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Though I am all for ushering in the next wave of players, there is something special about Driver and what he does with the ball in his hands. I have to think that if he were just showing up now he’d be used for some tricky plays where you could see his elusiveness being shown off…but he’s too old for that crap now.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 12:37 PM CST up reply actions  

That TD was great.

I was pretty sure I heard “Yakety Sax” (aka the Benny Hill song) playing over the PA system during that play.

"Career highlights? I had two. I got an intentional walk from Sandy Koufax and I got out of a rundown against the Mets." - Bob Uecker

by texwestern on Dec 6, 2010 5:14 PM CST up reply actions  

Jennings

Man its nice to see him living up to the #1 WR billing we all had him pegged at. I know I was starting to question him earlier this year but since Finley has gone down he’s been INCREDIBLE. Heck he needs to be on our running MVP lists, there is NO doubt that he’s a HUGE reason for our success this year despite losing our #1 TE and #1 RB.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 8:02 AM CST reply actions  

Right on

He’s got that quality where he makes things look effortless. He’s a blue-chipper for sure. No wasted movement, no fear. He just gets it done.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 10:23 AM CST up reply actions  

Same here. I think it shows that he probably wasn’t being properly targeted prior to Finley’s injury. He’s definitely a legit #1 in this league, and after this season, should be considered among the elite.

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 11:10 AM CST up reply actions  

Yeah I have to agree…I think he was being misused and ignored cause there was too much attention being drawn up for Finley. I hope the coaches remember this next year so it doesn’t happen again. Finley is a special player but Jennings is boarding on an elite WR and you CAN’t ignore that. if he’s the focal point of the offense, imagine how much more that will open things up for Finley too!

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 12:38 PM CST up reply actions  

Other teams

and defenses view Finley as much more of a threat than Jennings… Defenses will always look to stop Finley before they do Jennings. Thats what determines who is the focal point more than the Packers! Who do opponents scheme to stop more Finley or Jennings?

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 12:45 PM CST up reply actions  

Our performance didn’t indicate that though. if they were scheming to take Finley out it didn’t show cause we still went to him more than Jennings. Something was arwry in our gameplan or our execution…with Finley out there, if he WAS in fact the one the defenses were planning on stopping, its pathetic then how little we went to Jennings. So I don’t know if that means Rodgers has eyes for Finley or if he was just the first look on most plays but with Finley out there, Jennings should be even MORE open and MORE of a threat and he wasn’t. That was my point, we need to make sure Jennings stays a huge part of our gameplan next year.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 12:49 PM CST up reply actions  

I agree with Trevor

How were other teams scheming to stop Finley, exactly? From what I remember early in the season, the only really effective tactic was injuring him.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 12:55 PM CST up reply actions  

FInley

They used a CB or S to cover him w/ more help over the top. Leaving Jennings w/ more open field… Kinda like how Randy Moss draws extra coverage over the top to take defenders away from Welker and now in Tenn, to take attention away from Chris Johnson a little. It creates more space for other players. They did that to Finley to account for him in a way they didn’t w/ Jennings.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 1:16 PM CST up reply actions  

I guess I just don’t see how Jennings wasn’t the top WR in the league at that point then though…why weren’t we throwing the ball to Jennings on every play knowing that the safety was shadowed over Finley? That is my struggle…its not doubting what you are saying cause I saw it too but why in the world did Jennings have such a terrible start to the year statistically if the safety wasn’t near him. Then now he’s got safeties shadowing his way and yet he’s one of the top wideouts in the game. There had to be some terrible game planning there by our offense. That is where i was going with this…I just don’t want Jennings to be sacrificed again when Finley is back.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 2:24 PM CST up reply actions  

I agree...

Jennings should have been a bigger part of the O earlier… Don’t know why his numbers were so off! Can’t really explain it…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 2:51 PM CST up reply actions  

It’s puzzling. It really doesn’t add up because Finley definitely was getting all the attention you said he was. Seemed like any time he went up the seam he had two guys watching him and sometimes even three.

It’s definitely weird that with Jennings numbers are better w/o Finley, and the extra attention he demanded. It’s total speculation but I think Rodgers had tunnel vision with Finley at times. I can think back to a number of throws where Rodgers tried to jam the ball into Finley despite him being heavily covered. I kind of think that he gets too locked into Finley at times.

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 6:22 PM CST up reply actions  

That could be true

But then again Finley has such a big mismatch against the players covering him that Rodgers may have felt that Finley was more open. DB’s can’t handle his size and LB can’t his speed. Thats not nearly the case w/ Jennings. So if both are kinda covered, maybe Rodgers feels he has a larger window w/ Finley. Which is the case… But hopefully they figure it out in training camp!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 7:12 PM CST up reply actions  

Also a factor could be

that in the beginning of the season, the O-line looked kindda 09-ish allowing sacks and pressure all the time! Jennings is obviously most valuable while developing a deep rout, setting up a bomb, whereas Finley presented much more of a quick release valve option as TE´s tend to do! Maybe that might be a big reason as to why Jennings is a monster now! Plus, sometimes it´s just easier to score with a couple of DB´s on your back:)

by Bragason on Dec 7, 2010 8:56 AM CST up reply actions  

Another miserable showing by the Special Teams

The special teams were horrible once again. From giving up big returns, to penalties, to missed 29 yard field goals. Something has to be done to fix this problem.

by Ryanweiss13 on Dec 6, 2010 8:15 AM CST reply actions  

I can handle the FG

What upset me was the consistent awesome field position they got after punts and the fact that we had to squib over half our kickoffs. It’s a work in progress, hopefully it will improve as more get healthy.

That being said, I really can’t think of this game without thinking of that play by Driver at the moment…..just incredible. So glad with all the TOs and Chad/Keyshawn Johnson’s out there we have been able to have Driver for all these years. Class act, same with Jennings.

by msc32887 on Dec 6, 2010 11:48 AM CST up reply actions  

while i will admit Starks didn't look bad...

remember it was only one game, against a less than stellar team. i would really like to see him continue playing well for everal more games before we crown him the Feature back.

by FFmorgan89 on Dec 6, 2010 8:48 AM CST reply actions  

While I do agree that it's too early to annoint him anything yet

The 49ers had the 8th best rush defense in the league… so while they as a team may not be stellar… they are pretty good in that area which gives more hope for the kid in the future

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Dec 6, 2010 10:14 AM CST up reply actions  

BUT

Knowing the Pack don’t have much of a running game, it’s possible they focused more on pass defense then run defense.

Nationwide Writer for SBNation's Nascar Ranting & Raving (www.4ever3blog.com)
"A ringing single for David Eckstein who, in my view, is the perfect size for an American male." -Bob Costas

by Troy J. on Dec 6, 2010 10:59 AM CST up reply actions  

Correct

But that’s not any news. I’d argue that all the teams we play are more concerned with the pass than the run. If they weren’t keyed in the on the passing game, they having watched film on the Packers over the past three years. (and more)

by StephanL on Dec 6, 2010 11:11 AM CST up reply actions  

Possibly but he did a lot of his damage on that 4th quarter drive in which I’m sure the 49ers knew we were going to try and pound the ball to run clock. I don’t think any asterisks should be placed next to his performance. The 49ers weren’t missing anybody, and have a very strong defense. I also saw him run through tackles multiple times, which we didn’t ever really seem out of Grant or Jackson. The kid looks good, and this was his first game in over 2 years.

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 11:12 AM CST up reply actions  

Starks breaking Tackles

I missed the first 10 minutes of the game, but heard over the radio the playcall at 3 & 1. It sounded something like this…

Third and one, Starks in the backfield, runs ahead into a defender and pushes ahead for the first down.

I still haven’t seen the play, but this overlooked play might have been my favorite because Starks was in in the first quarter getting carries on third down. Our backs, mostly Jackson, seem great at running for no gain on third and short, usually right into the back of College (who didn’t get any push, big surprise).

If Starks can be the guy on third and 1, he can be an every down back. We all know that’s what MM seems to prefer, and I like Starks upside a a lot more than Jackson’s as an every down back.

Even if this is too early to get this excited about this young player, his presence is pushing Jackson to perform and this was clear on his big screen play on third down that took him inside the 2 yard line. You can see Jackson running HARD. Jackson will be playing really hard to keep his starting job, which might be exactly what he needs to be a bit more explosive or even just productive.

by StephanL on Dec 6, 2010 11:21 AM CST up reply actions  

In Khun's defense

He converted four (4) 3rd-and-1’s, plus a 1 yard TD run. He did everything we asked him to do.

by Puddleglumed on Dec 6, 2010 12:11 PM CST up reply actions  

Fair enough

I won’t take that away from Kuhn. His contributions cannot be appreciated by stats, because he is pretty good in those third and 1s.

by StephanL on Dec 6, 2010 2:35 PM CST up reply actions  

For sure but we all know he’s very limited too. I actually like Kuhn a lot but he’s just not fast enough to get it done.

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 6:27 PM CST up reply actions  

Nah

They focused on our running game knowing that we’d think they’d focus on the passing game and thus work on the running game.

by Danwood on Dec 6, 2010 11:41 AM CST up reply actions  

I hope not cause if they did and they still got lit up like that it really makes them look bad!

I was hoping they would lose last week to the Cards so we could take down Singletary this week…doesn’t look like that will happen. I think our tally is going to stop at 2 this year…

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 12:44 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm still hoping for

a colossal Bear meltdown and we eliminate them from the playoffs in week 17 and Lovie’s gone in the off-season… that’d make the trifecta

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Dec 6, 2010 12:47 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah…just seems less and less likely…I am still holiding out hope too though!

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 12:49 PM CST up reply actions  

Granted they have only played 4 teams that actually run the ball, so I think that rating is a little skewed

But I would say almost 80 yards in a debut is pretty good considering the state of the O-line. Keep it up for a few more games and Grant may have trouble getting his spot back next year

by supertrooper15 on Dec 6, 2010 1:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Probably a good point. They do have a pretty darn good front 7 though.

I hope he continues to improve. He looked pretty darn good yesterday.

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 6:28 PM CST up reply actions  

49ers Defense

This is not a “less than stellar” unit. They suffered some injuries this season like we have, but their front 7 is strong and led by tackling machine Pat Willis.

by StephanL on Dec 6, 2010 11:13 AM CST up reply actions  

the 49ers are 4 in 8

in my opinion that is less than stellar. and if not you’re standards must be pretty low.

by FFmorgan89 on Dec 6, 2010 10:37 PM CST up reply actions  

their record is bad, that doesn’t mean their D is though. One of the biggest reasons for their record is instability at QB and their offense in general. They are still a young evolving team.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 10:44 PM CST up reply actions  

My 2 cents

The good:
Driver is a beast. Jennings might even be better. Promising debut for Starks against a decent run D.

The bad:
I can’t believe there was no competition for Crosby in traing camp. Is he really the best we can do? Special teams kick coverage continues to stink. My opinion is part due to coaching and part due to injuries.

Sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.

by White92 on Dec 6, 2010 8:58 AM CST reply actions  

I thought that missed Field goal looked touched.

I may be wrong, but it looked very close to being touched, which would have caused it to shank.

Nationwide Writer for SBNation's Nascar Ranting & Raving (www.4ever3blog.com)
"A ringing single for David Eckstein who, in my view, is the perfect size for an American male." -Bob Costas

by Troy J. on Dec 6, 2010 11:00 AM CST up reply actions  

Well, if you’re knocking Crosby for short kickoffs (maybe I’m reading into your statement too much), I’m pretty positive that he’s being told to try and pooch kicks into the corners.

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 11:13 AM CST up reply actions  

Should have clarified..

My problem with Crosby is the makeable FG’s he has missed..the ones vs. Chicago and Washington has cost games. Thankfully yesterday did not.

Sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.

by White92 on Dec 6, 2010 11:21 AM CST up reply actions  

I guess the Chicago was blocked..

my mistake

Sometimes nothin is a real cool hand.

by White92 on Dec 6, 2010 11:23 AM CST up reply actions  

I agree

But if he keeps missing easy field goals… I would think there will be competition in the offseason or a release in the future.

Unfortunatly… I don’t think there are many truley GREAT kickers out there.. which means we would probably need to draft one.

by Chief Oshkosh on Dec 6, 2010 1:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Alright, my bad, I read into your statement too much. I agree with what you’re saying though, it’s pretty disappointing. He actually started off this season pretty strong too. I was hoping that he’d finally got over his nerves or confidence. (To be fair, he still could prove us wrong.)

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 6:29 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not a big Crosby fan and never really have been

since he had a FG at the end of regulation blocked by or missed gainst the Bears a few years ago (don’t remember the specifics and don’t feel like looking it up)

Until he shows me he can hit a CLUTCH FG (IE tied or losing by 3 or less in the 4th)… I’ll always consider a bad choice as kicker… those are the type of kicks YOU HAVE TO MAKE… I don’t care if he can nail a 53 yarder down the pipes when we’re winning by 20… I need a kicker who can live in those clutch moments and deliver games… It’s like Vinetari or Vanderjagt… which would you rather have?

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Dec 6, 2010 6:56 PM CST up reply actions  

His first ever game

He hit the game winner against Philly.

by jonohull on Dec 6, 2010 8:38 PM CST up reply actions  

He's made 1 game winner

congrats… he’s missed a hell of a lot more then that

by Goldenarmadillo4 on Dec 7, 2010 7:15 PM CST up reply actions  

OT: Former Cowboys quarterback Don Meredith has died.

I’m on my mobile phone, and I don’t know how to post links. Sounds like he was in failing health for a while.

I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.

State high point count: 3/50

GO BADGERS! WIN THE ROSE BOWL!!!!!

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Dec 6, 2010 9:20 AM CST via mobile reply actions  

They say that all good things must end.

I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.

State high point count: 3/50

GO BADGERS! WIN THE ROSE BOWL!!!!!

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Dec 6, 2010 6:33 PM CST up reply actions  

good game

the only blemishes were the crap kick coverage and the D falling asleep for a couple plays. You’d think that they’d be aware of Vernon Davis, since he’s their best receiver. I hope that dom comes up with a game plan than targets Calvin Johnson next week.

It was nice to see Starks hit the line hard instead of Jackson tiptoeing up to it in a pre-fetal position.

I wish they would get Tramon Williams of of punt returns. He’s not that good and he’ll eventually get killed back there and they’ll be out their 33 mil. AND they can’t afford to lose another DB.

by Egbert Souse on Dec 6, 2010 10:17 AM CST reply actions  

If San Fran has a better QB this game would have been closer

They left Davis WIDE open on more than just the one big gain. He probably should have had about 4 very large receptions.

Nationwide Writer for SBNation's Nascar Ranting & Raving (www.4ever3blog.com)
"A ringing single for David Eckstein who, in my view, is the perfect size for an American male." -Bob Costas

by Troy J. on Dec 6, 2010 11:01 AM CST up reply actions  

I don't think it is just the top receiver...

I think it is more that if their best player is a TE, we are going to get gashed. But if they have a good WR, he can be shut down sometimes. Good TE’s hurt us more than good WR’s have.

by Bush League All Star on Dec 6, 2010 12:22 PM CST up reply actions  

+1 on the Tramon comment

too valuable to lose and not all that effective returning punts.

"Hawk Harrelson: Annoying even the hearing impaired": Teahenny Penny paraphrasing Chisoxfan1473

by NorthSidePaulie on Dec 6, 2010 2:33 PM CST up reply actions  

The bottom line numbers look good

but it is hard not to be concerned about the tendency of this team to start out cold and slow.
Something they can get away with against lesser teams, but potentially a kiss of death against the elite teams.
It is fascinating how they (regularly) put up these big numbers, while playing just 2(+) quarters of real football.

by docg on Dec 6, 2010 10:28 AM CST reply actions  

It is fascinating how they (regularly) put up these big numbers, while playing just 2(+) quarters of real football.

It really is. I think to myself all the time about how good we may be if we just played consistent football from start to finish. Seems like we always have our heads up our asses for a at least a quarter.

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 11:15 AM CST up reply actions  

Bummer

I say we have Johnny Jolly suit up in Jenkins’ uni and see if anyone notices. :-)

by Puddleglumed on Dec 6, 2010 12:14 PM CST up reply actions  

It may just be a 'a couple of weeks' for now

but I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s put on IR later. I really don’t trust our training staff with him. Those guys must be doing something wrong, with all the injuries we’ve had this year, particularly all the injuries that have flared back up, after guys have come back. Think Brandon Chillar, Cullen Jenkins, etc.

"Tragedy is what happens to me. Comedy is what happens to you." -Mel Brooks

by jobe on Dec 6, 2010 12:45 PM CST up reply actions  

No, they're doing exactly what they need to do...

As a former S and C coach I can tell you don’t know what your talking about!!! Football is a VIOLENT relentless sport!!! Guys get hurt every game, some they can play with, some they can’t… Don’t pretend you can speak about something you know nothing about!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 12:49 PM CST up reply actions  

I know you have the background but you don’t have a clue what is happening behind the doors of their training facility. Not really sure what you are talking about…I don’t think either of you has a right to say if they are doing well or not unless you are back there seeing what they are doing.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 12:51 PM CST up reply actions  

I've seen videos of the Packer training regimes...

So I do have a good idea of what they do… and its not unlike how I trained my athletes, just higher tech and more of it w/ more facilities, equipment at their disposal…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 12:58 PM CST up reply actions  

Does that include treatments for injuries?

Because that seems to be jobe’s gripe.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 1:02 PM CST up reply actions  

Muscle stains only recover and heal w/ time! ALot more than is available in-season

Players play w/ them as much as they can and hope they don’t injure it further or aggravate it… Once its injured there isn’t much you can do until your body can heal itself, and that usually means the off-season.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 1:06 PM CST up reply actions  

I may be reading too much into this

But would it then be your opinion that the frequency of re-injury that has occurred for the Packers this year can be chalked up to bad luck? It just seems to me (without going and looking at all team’s injury reports) that the Packers have had more debilitating minor injuries than most teams. I understand that luck is going to have a large factor in how many injuries a team sustains in a season, but surely there have to be varying degrees to which training staffs can help prevent injures.*

*Obligatory Leslie Neilsen reference: “I don’t know, and don’t call me Shirley!”

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 1:12 PM CST up reply actions  

Pretty much...

Once you have that kinda injury to a muscle all you can to is expedite the healing process a little. But the body has to do its own work to heal it and it takes time… E-stim is the usual method to stimulate healing and that what the ‘treatment’ is… they can and do do it as many as 4 or 5 times a day, sometimes even around the clock. But it only speeds the healing a little maybe cutting it in half from months to weeks…

The Packers are generally conservative, as much as they can be w/ putting players back on the field too soon. Its Dr McKenzie’s call when the player might be able to return or how long he’s out. BTW-Dr McKenzie is an acquantance.. Not that he would remember!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 1:23 PM CST up reply actions  

It is a violent sport with inevitable injuries

but you still need to watch the statistics and effects in time. If training, stretching, recovery, nutrition, physical therapy, etc. are not as good as should be, the higher number trends will increase and repeat in time. The statistics this year do not look good, but that does not yet mean there is someone or some process to blame, yet.
Continued or continual problems at this level do warrant analyzing all of the variables and looking at ways to improve things. It is not as black and white as you make it out to be, i.e., the pretending goes both ways on this one.

by docg on Dec 6, 2010 2:33 PM CST up reply actions  

oof!

“A few weeks”… Ouch. Good thing we’ve got the Lions this week to figure out what works.

He’s the only one on the d-line who we could count on to impact the passing game. Now our starters will be Raji, Pickett and Greene? …yeesh. I mean, they’re good players, don’t get me wrong, but we’re basically lining up 3 nosetackles. …with not a lot of depth behind them, either.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 12:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Probably gonna see alot of the 1 DL and 6 LB for a game or two!

Especially vs Detroit… Good, not great run game and its not a power run game, so that formation of nickel can contain Detroit on the ground… But Detroit throws the ball alot… So nickel packages will be on the field alot!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 12:23 PM CST up reply actions  

That is one fricken beefy line then. WOW.

Green – 365
Pickett – 340
Raji – 337
Total – 1042 on the front three…
 

Still have CJ Wilson and Jarius Wynn (I think?) though. Is Montgomery still alive? If not, I wouldn’t mind having Green plug up that middle and possibly moving Raji to an end from time to time. I just don’t want to see OL’s on the goal line packages playing DT or DE spot. ;/

by Bush League All Star on Dec 6, 2010 12:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Damn…that is amazing! Losing Jenkins really sucks though!!

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 12:52 PM CST up reply actions  

Update

They picked his brain about the Packers defensive system and dropped him. We signed him up a couple weeks later, but then released him after a week or two on the team.

by StephanL on Dec 6, 2010 2:41 PM CST up reply actions  

Brandon

wrote " same stature as Grant, and he even has a similar upright running style. His strength and speed past the line of scrimmage are similar too, but he didn’t (yet) show the ability to make defenders miss. He didn’t show Grant’s vision with which he could turn a good gain into a 20+ yard run."

Have to disagree w/ most of this… Yeah I’m a big Starks fan, but I also like Grant, just not as much! Yeah they are very similar in stature, but Starks isn’t nearly as long legged as Grant! Grant can make one good cut, but then has to gather himself and isn’t able to make another one anytime soon! Starks tho has shorter legs and therefore has a lower base for making terrific cuts and being able to stay on balance to make another one almost immediately. Starks has much better cutback ability over Grant and he also has better vision to see the cutbacks! Didn’t see it soo much yesterday, but from his video which I’ve seen its readily apparent!!!

Starks will make Grant expendable or 2nd string soon enough if given the chance! Grant is in the final year of his contract next year. They might bring back Grant next year but he’ll have to earn his job! Oh and Starks is a far superior reciever to Grant!!! Starks could actually line up some as a WR and run routes from there too… A la Marshall Faulk.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 12:17 PM CST reply actions  

oh, good land!

Okay, we get that you’re a huge fan of Starks and he had a nice game, but, honestly…

…Marshall Faulk? Please.

I mean, aside from the fact that Marshall Faulk is about to go into the HoF, let’s just talk about comparing the two at similar points in their career. Do you remember Marshall Faulk in college? He had a “bad” game when he had less than 200 yards. Seriously, I’m not exagerating.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 12:23 PM CST up reply actions  

Misunderstood me...

I didn’t in any way say that Starks was as good as Marshall Faulk!!! Just that he’s a good enough reciever to use out of the backfield lined up as a WR, like Faulk used to do alot of!!! SHeeesh… Please read what I wrote, instead of what you want to read out of it…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 12:27 PM CST up reply actions  

Here's what I read:

You compared Starks to Marshall Faulk.

My response was justified the moment you mentioned his name.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 12:29 PM CST up reply actions  

Well in context, I wouldn't support your argument.

Stroh made no mention of production from the WR spot. He is just referencing an action that Faulk would take for comparison. Just sayin’!

by Bush League All Star on Dec 6, 2010 12:32 PM CST up reply actions  

Well, then could have said “a la KEVIN Faulk,” who is also a very nice receiver out of the backfield.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 12:44 PM CST up reply actions  

Sure, I getcha'

It’s kinda’ like how Jerious Wynn can line up at DE, like Reggie White used to.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 12:54 PM CST up reply actions  

You read it wrong.

what was actually said was

…line up some as a WR and run routes from there too… A la Marshall Faulk
Not a cpmparison, at all!

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 6, 2010 12:38 PM CST up reply actions  

Okay, then I think our offense could really open up if the Packers would use Brett Swain more like the 49ers used to use Jerry Rice, y’know, with the slant patterns and stuff.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 12:48 PM CST up reply actions  

Swain does!

he’s just not as productive as RIce… And I never mentioned anything about production either!!! READ

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 12:54 PM CST up reply actions  

So you’re saying that Starks can line up at WR sometimes and be unproductive when he does so?

Am I READING you correctly now?

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 12:57 PM CST up reply actions  

quite bein a Richard!!!

Everyone else knows what I said and you should too… They already told you you were wrong… give it a freakin rest and admit you were wrong!

Starks can line up as a WR, a la Faulk, but he isn’t going to be as productive at it as Faulk, but can still be effective!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 1:02 PM CST up reply actions  

Y'know, I'd like to apologize for that Richard comment I made about you, like 2 months ago...

but…

We’re seeing it again here. The words and opinions of Stroh are like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, they cannot be changed.

All I’m looking for here is something to the effect of “yeah, it was maybe a bit premature to bring up Marshall Faulk in connection with James Starks. But, what can I say? I like the kid’s potential, and I guess I got a little carried away.”

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 1:06 PM CST up reply actions  

except

That I didn’t compare Starks to Faulk you did… I never said in any way, shape or form that Starks would ever rival Faulk in production or talent on the field… Just that he could line up like Fauld did quite a bit, as a WR… No mention of production or a comparison!

I wrote exactly what I intended and you read into it what you wanted.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 1:11 PM CST up reply actions  

Okay, so your comment wasn’t made in the context of how Starks will add a whole new dimension to our offense and how he’ll make Grant expendable within a year.

Gotcha. I stand corrected.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 1:15 PM CST up reply actions  

RICHARD!

He COULD if the Packers choose to try him in that way… Don’t know there plans for him… And yeah, I think its possible that Starks could take Grants job next year! Likely or not, it still possible.

IMO he will be a better RB than Grant, maybe not next year but he will IMO…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 1:27 PM CST up reply actions  

Well, see that's the thing.

He was going on and on about how great Starks is, and then he dropped Marshall Faulk’s name in to illustrate the way in which Starks is going to help our offense. I threw the bullshit flag and now I’m the bad guy.

That’s what he said. Go up and look. It’s right there. The comment is sitting right there, for everybody to see, and it says what it says.

I mean, whatever… everybody agrees that I’m wrong here. But…

I just have to say, in the words of Walter Sobchek. “Has the whole world gone FUCKING CRAZY!? MARK IT ZERO!!”

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 4:03 PM CST up reply actions  

Get used to it...

Thats what happens to me most the time! And I end up the “bad” guy for it…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 4:19 PM CST up reply actions  

Look

Stroh wasn’t aiming to compare Faulk and Starks. He wanted an example of a RB who has been known to line up on the outside, and Faulk I’m sure was the first one to come to mind. I’m honestly not having the easiest time coming up with other ones (Matt Forte comes to mind, but I may be imagining him lining up outside). Would it have been better to mention a more marginal RB as a comparison, perhaps, but it’s not as if he’s writing a thesis. It’s an off-the-cuff role comparison that you made a federal case out of.

P.S. Your martyr routine isn’t the most endearing either…

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 4:21 PM CST up reply actions  

Forte does occasionally

Not as much as Faulk used to but he does. And its not a coincidence since both are Martz calling plays and his offense.

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 4:28 PM CST up reply actions  

Martyr routine?

Man, it’s like you guys pull your insults out of a hat, or you use something because you heard it once and thought it sounded cool. I am not claiming to be a victim here, which is how the word is usually used.

However, the word originally meant somebody who testifies or witnesses. So, in that sense, yes, I openly confess and do not deny that you are all wrong.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 7, 2010 9:44 AM CST up reply actions  

Yeah, you kind of are

But thanks for assuming I’m an idiot and don’t know what a martyr is. I couldn’t possibly have used it in a way that means you’re playing up the fact that you think you’re being persecuted for your beliefs…I just thought it sounded cool.

Kind of like how I frequently call people polygamous bigots, I have no idea what it means but boy do I sound smart! /extreme sarcasm

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 7, 2010 9:49 AM CST up reply actions  

Alright, well then, I hereby call you an antidisestablishmentarian.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 7, 2010 10:10 AM CST up reply actions  

*Rolls eyes

Yes, that’s totally the same thing

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 7, 2010 11:23 AM CST up reply actions  

Okay, you’re a polygamous bigot then. …better?

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 7, 2010 12:05 PM CST up reply actions  

who says Stroh doesn’t learn anything in here…your subject line is proof that you do!! :-)

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 2:30 PM CST up reply actions  

I didn’t see what you saw at all. He was strictly talking about how a player is being used, not the skill set of the player. Gotta side with Stroh on this one.

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 12:53 PM CST up reply actions  

Yeah, you lost it pretty handily.

Pretty much harping on the same point over and over again, that Stroh had already clarified was your downfall.

dinasour type of guys choir boys

by mittsabishy on Dec 6, 2010 1:21 PM CST up reply actions  

I harped on the same point for two reasons:

1) It was a simple point that was completely obvious.
2) Stroh did NOT take back what he clearly did say.

And the reason I’m still talking about such a silly topic is that, for whatever reason, I’m hoping that someday Stroh will admit that he was wrong or went too far with some statement that he’s made. Now, why I care about this is anybody’s guess. But I do, so…

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 1:33 PM CST up reply actions  

LOL

Can I get someone to “green” it…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 1:42 PM CST up reply actions  

Done

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 1:45 PM CST up reply actions  

LOL

Love it!!

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 2:31 PM CST up reply actions  

Hey, I’ll be the first to admit that this picture fits.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 1:43 PM CST up reply actions  

Admit

And I can admit that sometimes I go too far/argue to hard… Heck I’ve even apoligized once, I think… LOL

Just not this time…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 1:49 PM CST up reply actions  

thank you.

I’ll take it.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 2:05 PM CST up reply actions  

your welcome.

Is that getting the last word?… LOL

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 2:58 PM CST up reply actions  

Kevin?

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 10:46 PM CST up reply actions  

And, right there, is the huge flaw in your whole premise,
Here’s what I read: You compared Starks to Marshall Faulk.

That is not what Strohman compared!
The only thing that Stroh actually compared was one single specific thing that Starks has the ability/talent/what-have-you to do, that Marshall Faulk use to do.

Every comment I have read in this thread from you, since Strohman made his statement, has been an attempt
(apparently deliberate; hence your appearance to be a Richard here)
to twist the meaning of what he said to fit that misconception, in order to justify your original slamming of him for something he never did in the first place.

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 6, 2010 9:07 PM CST up reply actions   1 recs

i had a boss that would put words in my mouth
then bitch at me for what he said

by fn_cold_ak on Dec 6, 2010 10:16 PM CST up reply actions  

Thanx Pat!!!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 11:04 PM CST up reply actions  

The only thing that Stroh actually compared was one single specific thing that Starks has the ability/talent/what-have-you to do, that Marshall Faulk use to do.

Fine, but in the context of that comment where Stroh is stroking Starks off, that comparison has an added meaning.

But I will admit that it was deliberate that I went after Stroh. I probably would’ve accepted the first attempt at a back-track from somebody else. But Stroh is one of those people who leaves out the part where he admits he’s wrong. He instead started going after me for not reading him correctly, and so I was like “yes, I did read you correctly.” …and then everybody came in here and didn’t see the obbvious truth, so… whatever.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 7, 2010 9:56 AM CST up reply actions  

I didn't backtrack in the least!

Nor did I “go after you”… I simply stated that you must have misunderstood me! Otherwise there was no reason for you to get into it w/ me other than to try to make me look bad!!! WHich if that is what you were doing, I would say that backfired on you severely!!!

But since as you said “it was deliberate that I went after Stroh” then you got what you deserved… A beatdown!!! And the funny thing is, it wasn’t by me!!!

I stated in my own fanpost on the subject that I was an unapologetic Starks fan! Whats that got to do with YOU attacking me? NOTHING… I would say you saw an opportunity to take a pot shot at me and it burned YOU!

BTW you can stroke Starks off… At least when I form a conclusion on someone I stick w/ it until proven otherwise!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 7, 2010 12:56 PM CST up reply actions  

Well, self-congratulatory characterizations aside...

Yeah, that’s pretty much what happened.

I tried to bully a bully. And, like you said, it backfired. You’re better than me at shifting the point of debate, belittling people, and weaseling out a win in a fight of words. But, given the impurity of my motives from the start, I can hardly take the high-road now, so…

I’ll just say: this sucked.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 7, 2010 4:01 PM CST up reply actions  

I wasn't congratulating myself...

I was pointing out how your attempt to take pot shots at me backfired! Thats it… Thats all… I’m out!

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 7, 2010 5:07 PM CST up reply actions  

Do you think Starks could make a 2012 presidential bid?

Think about it- #1 RB in the history of the league- #1 office in the world? Dream big!

by Danwood on Dec 6, 2010 12:28 PM CST up reply actions  

hahah

I think Stroh should check if there’s still an opening as his campaign manager. You gotta’ get in on the ground floor with these things.

by Curly Lambeau on Dec 6, 2010 12:30 PM CST up reply actions  

SNAP SHOTS

The overall felling I have watching the Packers , is that I just see part of what this team can do. While in many respects the SF game saw better better offensive performance, including some decent run blocking, the defense seemed to rest a little. It likes just whets the appetite as to their real capabilities. There are no super teams this year. Only the Packers can beat the Packers.

by marcopo on Dec 6, 2010 2:36 PM CST reply actions  

I'll probably get flamed for this again

But there was one game where I felt we were outplayed by the other team, and that was Atlanta. I know, I know, the fumble at the goal line and the missed Gonzo challenge, but the Packers did not beat the Packers in Atlanta; Atlanta beat the Packers in Atlanta.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 2:47 PM CST up reply actions  

You're right

The Falcons beat us, because they made a couple play that we could not. I wound’t put my money on the Falcons if we see them in the playoffs though.

by StephanL on Dec 6, 2010 2:49 PM CST up reply actions  

I think we can beat them at home!

Last game turned on a couple plays IMO… Change those plays and the Packers get the W…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 3:14 PM CST up reply actions  

Do I think the Packers could beat Atlanta in Atlanta?

Yes, I think we could. But let me ask you this Stroh, did you feel that the Packers outplayed Atlanta?

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 3:15 PM CST up reply actions  

outplay them? no...

Played them Pretty evenly tho…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 4:20 PM CST up reply actions  

That's kind of my point

For the most part they played us evenly. Atlanta made the few crucial plays, Green Bay didn’t. Thus we were outplayed.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 4:22 PM CST up reply actions  

But those couple of plays could have easily gone our way.

As in Rodgers fumble wasn’t them making a play, but Rodgers fumbling it… And the gonzo catch might have been called the other way by officials. Thus evenly, IMO…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 4:25 PM CST up reply actions  

You're missing the crux of my argument

The plays DIDN’T go our way. If for 98% of a game, the teams are even, and on 2% of the snaps one teams makes the crucial plays, that team outplayed the other.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 4:34 PM CST up reply actions  

I get that...

IMO, the fact is the plays could have gone our way… Which is more luck than it is Atl outplaying us…

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 4:56 PM CST up reply actions  

I'm not saying that Atlanta thrashed us or anything

They outplayed us by a little bit, but that’s still outplaying us.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 5:23 PM CST up reply actions  

The bottom line
You’re missing the crux of my argument
The plays DIDN’T go our way.

we were playing against arguably the best of the other 15 teams in the conference, in their place, and the game was played pretty much evenly.
Even if, under those conditions, the Falcons did barely outplay us, the game did come down to a couple of plays, which could indeed have gone our way and turned the outcome of game in our favor.
Sure, those couple of plays did go the Falcons way … THIS time!!!
There is no guarantee, if we play as well, that those plays won’t go the Packers’ way the next time.
That, to borrow one of Chris Berman’s few good quotes, is why they play the games.

And, that is one of the reasons why we have hope, and why my glass stein is nearly full. :)

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 6, 2010 9:34 PM CST up reply actions  

out played?

only stat that matters is the score

by fn_cold_ak on Dec 6, 2010 10:19 PM CST up reply actions  

I’m not Stroh but….my honest to god feeling throughout that game, and after really, was that we played pretty much dead even (aside from special teams). Both teams moved the ball up and down the field but both teams also got some key stops.

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 6:36 PM CST up reply actions  

So you agree with me if you say that we were dead even aside from special teams

Because than it was a draw in two aspects and Atlanta outplayed us in ST. Thus Atlanta outplayed the Packers. I’m not saying they outplayed us by a lot, I’m just saying that outplayed us.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 6:47 PM CST up reply actions  

I think I'm muddling my point here

My point is that I don’t think the Packers beat themselves against Atlanta.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 6:48 PM CST up reply actions  

I don’t either, and I do understand what you’re saying. I suppose I’d have to agree that they outplayed us, simply because their STs was so much better then ours was. I think offensively and defensively though, that we were pretty much dead even.

by packallday555 on Dec 6, 2010 6:53 PM CST up reply actions  

ON Being Outplayed

Being outplayed is one thing. Atlanta won the game and therefore “outplayed” the Packers. But I sure wasn’t convinced the Falcons team was a better team. The Packers were also “outlucked” by the Falcons a la the non-catch catch. So yes, the Packers did beat the Packers in Atlanta, IMO.

by marcopo on Dec 6, 2010 7:37 PM CST up reply actions  

I would also add that the Packers OL had a very “off” day relative to how they have been playing. I don’t think the off day was provoked by the play of Atlanta.

by marcopo on Dec 6, 2010 7:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Outplaying other teams

You really think we outplayed the Vikings? Or did the refs outplay the Vikings?

53 Bears, 1 Cup

by I voted for Kodos on Dec 8, 2010 1:53 AM CST up reply actions  

Again, I don't think I made my point clearly

My issue was with marcopo saying that only the Packers could beat the Packers, while I thought that was not the case against the Falcons. The Vikings game probably falls into a similar category where it was very even for the majority of the game, and a few plays went the Packers way, so IMO the Packers were the better team that day.

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 8, 2010 7:44 AM CST up reply actions  

I think our ability to convert on third and short or goal to goal on the 1

is the difference in my book. Last Sunday we put our selves in third in short situations and converted. We may have a savior in James Stark( his 78 yards was the most yards by rookie in his first game since 1948), I would like to see more before I get too excited. But any kind of running attack is better than what we had, especially when our leading rusher is Rodgers and we use him on third and 1 situations. This could be what puts us to the next level.
  I also think special teams is our a achilles heal, has had hand in all four of our losses.

by cheddarhead on Dec 6, 2010 4:07 PM CST reply actions  

Special teams

did contribute heavily to our win vs. the Jets though.

by Archibaldcrane on Dec 6, 2010 5:05 PM CST up reply actions  

Forgot about that one, Can't figure out

Matthsey one game he’s great next he’s the goat Crosby’s the same. But special teams have had more bad games than good.

by cheddarhead on Dec 6, 2010 5:15 PM CST reply actions  

Denver Broncos fire Josh McDaniels.

I can’t find any links to confirm, this, however … hang tight.

I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.

State high point count: 3/50

GO BADGERS! WIN THE ROSE BOWL!!!!!

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Dec 6, 2010 5:27 PM CST reply actions  

There you go.

Thanks.

I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.

State high point count: 3/50

GO BADGERS! WIN THE ROSE BOWL!!!!!

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Dec 6, 2010 5:36 PM CST up reply actions  

That can't be right

We haven’t even played them this year!!

Towlieppan: "You wanna throw high?"

by GoGregGo on Dec 6, 2010 5:37 PM CST up reply actions   2 recs

LOL

You've been Stroh'd™!!!

by Strohman on Dec 6, 2010 5:38 PM CST up reply actions  

LOL

I didn't believe it last August, but it turns out that love survives.

State high point count: 3/50

GO BADGERS! WIN THE ROSE BOWL!!!!!

by Vermont Cubs Fan on Dec 6, 2010 5:39 PM CST up reply actions  

Greened

You beat me to it (I was working).

TT bashers - turning my stomach since 2005!
The glass is way more than half-full!

by NorthStarr on Dec 6, 2010 9:38 PM CST up reply actions  

haha

EXACTLY what I said to my wife (the Viking fan) and she just rolled her eyes!

The Green Bay Packers...Putting bad coaches out of their misery since 2010

by TrevorR on Dec 6, 2010 10:48 PM CST up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed



Manager

Img00243_small Kevin McCauley

Editors

Texbucky_small texwestern

Author

Rubberducky_small Mitchell Maurer

Ayrton_senna_1988_canada_small Vermont Cubs Fan

Fallout-3-1010_small PackApologist

Gassertaylor_small OBrienSchofieldismyHero

Linkedin_picture_small Zack Ward

Carson-palmer-hot-dog_small MatthewJStein