Football smack talk

RealMiniDriver wrote:

Joe Gearin wrote: Green Bay is a mediocre to poor team with a great quarterback.

Mediocre to poor teams don't put 53 points on the board, with just one great player.

As they're saying online, a "double fitty-burger". Heh.

So, the best question here......WTF is up with the NFC South? 4-6 after week 11, AND LEADING A DIVISION?!?!?!?!?

In reply to yamaha:

Nobody has an explanation for it. I'm embarrassed to even mention that as a 3-7-1 team we are still strongly in the running to win the division and earn a playoff spot ("strong" being used loosely - we have looked nothing but weak this year).

In reply to Tmc22:

I almost want the whole division to keep losing.....I want to see a division winner at sub .500 and have homefield advantage against an opponent with 1.5-2x the number of wins.

In reply to yamaha:

As long as that sub .500 team is the Panthers, I'm all for it. A playoff birth is a playoff birth, doesn't matter to me how we get there.

In reply to yamaha:

That would be ironic, and it would be even more ironic if that sub .500 team went on to win the Super Bowl.

In reply to Tmc22:

Indeed it would be. I like this notion of CHAOS

stroker wrote:

RealMiniDriver wrote:

Joe Gearin wrote: Green Bay is a mediocre to poor team with a great quarterback.

Mediocre to poor teams don't put 53 points on the board, with just one great player.

As they're saying online, a "double fitty-burger". Heh.

The planets have certainly be aligning for the Pack in the last couple of weeks--- as they have had every ball bounce their way, and they have scored a million points. That said--- without Rogers they are a 7-9 team at best. Running up the score on the Bears (who have all rookies in the secondary), and beating the Eagles (with dirty Sanchez at QB) are hardly massive achievements. Their non-existent run defense will show it's ugly head as the year rolls on---- especially if they have to play Arizona, or even Dallas.

It annoys me to no end that the Bears go 30 years or more between good QBs, while the annoying Pack go from one Hall of Fame QB to the next. But don't let Roger's brilliance fool you------ the Pack are weak, and one good hit away from being totally out of contention. He's probably the league's MVP--- as his team would be completely helpless without him.

In reply to Joe Gearin:

The Bears are just bad, get over it. FWIW, you'd also have to eliminate Lacy from contention in GB for them to be that bad.

Totally agree with Joe. As an Eagles fan, I'll be the first to say they got their butts kicked. They had a disasterous start, and there's no recovering from there. Besides, Mark Sanchez on his best day is a servicable quarterback. On a bad day, he's butt terrible. But even if the Eagles had Nick Foles, they still would have gotten run over yesterday, it was just one of those days. Give the Pack their due for the clobbering.

Most teams don't do well with a back up. I think I heard on ESPN that teams starting back ups are something like 17-30. But I agree that without Rogers, the Pack would suffer more than most teams. Aaron Rogers is definitely an MVP.

I hear you yamaha---the Bears are atrocious. Unfortunately, I think they will remain bad until they fire the coaching staff.

I still stand by my assessment of the Pack though. Sure Lacy is pretty good---- but you take Rodgers away, and that team falls apart. Without the threat of a passing game, I think you'd find Lacy would have a much tougher time running the ball. Rodgers is just that good---- he masks glaring faults in other areas of the team, and he has for years.

That said--- when he is healthy they have a chance. Mostly because they cheat!

In reply to Joe Gearin:

I think at that point more attention would be paid to Lacy providing an easier passing option......especially considering the backup is Matt Flynn.

Anyways, with Denver learning not to take teams like the Rams for granted, and Arizona still winning without Palmer, we're in for a strange year.

poopshovel wrote:

I was at a Sports bar watching the games when this happened. The whole place erupted in one long "ooooh". It was great.

yamaha wrote: In reply to Tmc22: I almost want the whole division to keep losing.....I want to see a division winner at sub .500 and have homefield advantage against an opponent with 1.5-2x the number of wins.

Uh, 2009, Seattle Seahawks, 7-9, NFC South hosting the IIRC 10-6 New Orleans Saints. They won, too.

Joe Gearin wrote: ...I still stand by my assessment of the Pack though. Sure Lacy is pretty good---- but you take Rodgers away, and that team falls apart...

So which teams don't fall apart when you take away their quarterback (assuming he is at least reasonably good, you know, not Sanchez)? Denver? New England? San Francisco?

(Rodgers didn't play half of last season and they still made it to the playoffs!)

It's sounds to me more like a Bears or Eagles fan with poopy pants.

Nick_Comstock wrote: We may not be prime time. But at the very least our rivers don't catch on fire...think about that for a minute...the freaking RIVER caught on FIRE. Cleveland

not sure what that has to do with football

Anybody else surprised that last night was a good game? I thought for sure it would be a blowout, but the Titans kept me interested 'till the end.

Tmc22 wrote: Anybody else surprised that last night was a good game? I thought for sure it would be a blowout, but the Titans kept me interested 'till the end.

The way we were playing in the first half, I'm surprised it wasn't a blowout in Tennessee's favor. Saved by the berkeleying BELL!!!

I'm not going to start screaming "Fire Haley" just yet, but we obviously need to draw up a few more plays to deal with the blitz. "Let Ben scramble around" is not a solid strategy.

Obviously we were saved by Bell's talent (a'la The Bus,) but I'm worried the kid's gonna be crippled by the end of the season and we'll be SOL.

aircooled wrote:

Joe Gearin wrote: ...I still stand by my assessment of the Pack though. Sure Lacy is pretty good---- but you take Rodgers away, and that team falls apart...

So which teams don't fall apart when you take away their quarterback (assuming he is at least reasonably good, you know, not Sanchez)? Denver? New England? San Francisco? (Rodgers didn't play half of last season and they still made it to the playoffs!) It's sounds to me more like a Bears or Eagles fan with poopy pants.

True, dat. Ask the Lions about how little respect they have for Matt Flynn.

Nope, Packers suck.

poopshovel wrote: The way we were playing in the first half, I'm surprised it wasn't a blowout in Tennessee's favor. Saved by the berkeleying BELL!!!

He has been UNREAL this season. Emerged quickly as one of the best backs in the league. I wish DeAngelo Williams or Jonathan Stewart would play like that... We pay them as if they do.

Joe Gearin wrote: Nope, Packers suck.

And the Bears suck worse.

ouch.....truth hurts

all you guy whining about how bad your teams suck … I've been a Redskin fan since the late '50's ….