ST_CONROY wrote:Not bitter. Just annoyed. I wondered how long before you chirped up!
Rodgers didn't lose us the game. Something i doubt your precious Eli could do. Or your saying being dragged by your facemask and fumble means he isn't "clutch".
.
Rodgers did lose you the game. If he doesn't fumble, they don't socre...that's simple enough. Eli went on the road and won in Tampa, Dallas and Green Bay and stomped out perfection. In close games this year you have lost more often than not, we both know why that is.
Joined: Jan 04 2006 Posts: 7069 Location: Green Bay
Mark wrote:Rodgers did lose you the game. If he doesn't fumble, they don't socre...that's simple enough. Eli went on the road and won in Tampa, Dallas and Green Bay and stomped out perfection. In close games this year you have lost more often than not, we both know why that is.
Depends on your interpretation. Rodgers stepped up and played excellent, our defence didn't and lost us the game. If he doesn't get facemasked he doesn't fumble the ball or at leat the score should not have stood. The incidental facemask rule has been removed therefore it is 15 yards no matter what as he doesn't release the hand and pulls him to the floor, which in turn inhibits his attempts to recover the ball and means it is kicked.
DRC agrees "“I’m thinking like, ‘Shoot, he did get away with a face mask,".
I'd love to hear your interpretation on why we have lost close games? Is this going to be like when you claimed we hadn't beat a winning team when we'd beaten 3?
In games where the result was less than 7 points difference we were 3-3 (3-4 if you include play-offs).
The reason we lost is in our defeats we were conceeded: 31, 30, 38, 38, 37 (51). Nothing to do with our offence (or Rodgers which is what your getting at), our lowest offensive score was 17 when we beat Dallas.
Joined: Mar 15 2009 Posts: 16166 Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts
Mark wrote:People are a bit guilty of just talking superbowls. What's the NFL titles list?
There you go squire
Green Bay Packers 12 Chicago Bears 9 Cleveland Browns 8 New York Giants 7 Pittsburgh Steelers# 6 Dallas Cowboys 5 San Francisco 49ers 5 Washington Redskins 5 Indianapolis Colts 5 Detroit Lions 4 Oakland Raiders 4 New England Patriots 3 Philadelphia Eagles 3 St. Louis Rams 3 Kansas City Chiefs 3 Denver Broncos 2 Miami Dolphins 2 Arizona Cardinals 2 Buffalo Bills 2 Canton Bulldogs 2 Tennessee Titans 2 New York Jets 1 Baltimore Ravens 1 Akron Pros 1 Cleveland Bulldogs 1 Frankford Yellow Jackets* 1 Minnesota Vikings 1 Providence Steam Roller 1 San Diego Chargers 1 Tampa Bay Buccaneers 1
ST_CONROY wrote:Depends on your interpretation. Rodgers stepped up and played excellent, our defence didn't and lost us the game. If he doesn't get facemasked he doesn't fumble the ball or at leat the score should not have stood. The incidental facemask rule has been removed therefore it is 15 yards no matter what as he doesn't release the hand and pulls him to the floor, which in turn inhibits his attempts to recover the ball and means it is kicked.
DRC agrees "“I’m thinking like, ‘Shoot, he did get away with a face mask,".
I'd love to hear your interpretation on why we have lost close games? Is this going to be like when you claimed we hadn't beat a winning team when we'd beaten 3?
In games where the result was less than 7 points difference we were 3-3 (3-4 if you include play-offs).
The reason we lost is in our defeats we were conceeded: 31, 30, 38, 38, 37 (51). Nothing to do with our offence (or Rodgers which is what your getting at), our lowest offensive score was 17 when we beat Dallas.
i don't have access to nfl stats in work as some sites blocked, i was going off the top of my head. I think the bucs defeat had something to do with rodgers. I actualy believe him to be a very good qb but like everything to do with the packers you exagerrate everything an make daft predictions an statements which leads to me an the others on here pointing out flaws in him to bring you back to reality.
Joined: Jan 04 2006 Posts: 7069 Location: Green Bay
Mark wrote:i don't have access to nfl stats in work as some sites blocked, i was going off the top of my head. I think the bucs defeat had something to do with rodgers. I actualy believe him to be a very good qb but like everything to do with the packers you exagerrate everything an make daft predictions an statements which leads to me an the others on here pointing out flaws in him to bring you back to reality.
Rodgers threw 3 picks in the Tampa game. He was a big reason we lost. It was his worst game and prompted the return of Tauscher to restore our O-line. Equally 28 points would generally be enough to defeat a winless team with a rookie QB making his first start, so the D must shoulder some of the blame.
I don't over exagerate to be fair. I said before the season we'd be 10-6 based on our schedule. We were 11-5. I said since midseason Woodson was DPOY. I was correct. I said we had a shot to win the superbowl. Again i was correct to think that, we have a potent offence and what was the 2nd ranked defence. I've never said we are the best team, we have some excellent players (Rodgers, Woodson, Jennings, CM3) but we also have some shockers and our record reflected the overall quality of our team.
I think Rodgers is legitimately a top 5-7 QB NOW. You think i over-exagerate about him (although i think my argument is pretty sound) and i think you underestimate him with the only actually point you can raise is that he isn't "clutch" which is an entirely abstract concept compared with him being statistically as good as every QB (we've been over it before we don't need to again). At the same time i think you over-exagerate how good Eli is based soley on a miraculous catch by Tyree. Along with you making stupid comments about the Packers which i defend and it turns out you just make things up.
ST_CONROY wrote:Rodgers threw 3 picks in the Tampa game. He was a big reason we lost. It was his worst game and prompted the return of Tauscher to restore our O-line. Equally 28 points would generally be enough to defeat a winless team with a rookie QB making his first start, so the D must shoulder some of the blame.
I don't over exagerate to be fair. I said before the season we'd be 10-6 based on our schedule. We were 11-5. I said since midseason Woodson was DPOY. I was correct. I said we had a shot to win the superbowl. Again i was correct to think that, we have a potent offence and what was the 2nd ranked defence. I've never said we are the best team, we have some excellent players (Rodgers, Woodson, Jennings, CM3) but we also have some shockers and our record reflected the overall quality of our team.
I think Rodgers is legitimately a top 5-7 QB NOW. You think i over-exagerate about him (although i think my argument is pretty sound) and i think you underestimate him with the only actually point you can raise is that he isn't "clutch" which is an entirely abstract concept compared with him being statistically as good as every QB (we've been over it before we don't need to again). At the same time i think you over-exagerate how good Eli is based soley on a miraculous catch by Tyree. Along with you making stupid comments about the Packers which i defend and it turns out you just make things up.
And a massive hold by a think it was Snee, as well as him being in the grasp so the play should have been called dead, or Asante Samuel stop covering Tyree because he thought the play was dead, nothing clutch about that play just a ton of luck and 2 bum reffing calls (and some bad clock management by the folks upstairs controlling the game clock according to one video I saw the other day), Rodgers is far better then Eli.
ST_CONROY wrote:Rodgers threw 3 picks in the Tampa game. He was a big reason we lost. It was his worst game and prompted the return of Tauscher to restore our O-line. Equally 28 points would generally be enough to defeat a winless team with a rookie QB making his first start, so the D must shoulder some of the blame.
I don't over exagerate to be fair. I said before the season we'd be 10-6 based on our schedule. We were 11-5. I said since midseason Woodson was DPOY. I was correct. I said we had a shot to win the superbowl. Again i was correct to think that, we have a potent offence and what was the 2nd ranked defence. I've never said we are the best team, we have some excellent players (Rodgers, Woodson, Jennings, CM3) but we also have some shockers and our record reflected the overall quality of our team.
I think Rodgers is legitimately a top 5-7 QB NOW. You think i over-exagerate about him (although i think my argument is pretty sound) and i think you underestimate him with the only actually point you can raise is that he isn't "clutch" which is an entirely abstract concept compared with him being statistically as good as every QB (we've been over it before we don't need to again). At the same time i think you over-exagerate how good Eli is based soley on a miraculous catch by Tyree. Along with you making stupid comments about the Packers which i defend and it turns out you just make things up.
I've never made anything up, i admit i got how many teams you'd beaten with a winning record wrong.That's just getting something wrong, something we all know you're very familar with. I said rodgers hasn't done it in important games...FACT. The packers have been aided by a weak schedule an division....FACT. I've said eli manning does it when it matters more often than not...FACT, and that isn't just on the superbowl. The 3 games before he was faultless an in plenty of games he's brought us back to win in the 4th quarter on final drives. Does rodgers have a winning record as a starting qb? .
Joined: Jan 04 2006 Posts: 7069 Location: Green Bay
Mark wrote:I've never made anything up, i admit i got how many teams you'd beaten with a winning record wrong.That's just getting something wrong, something we all know you're very familar with. I said rodgers hasn't done it in important games...FACT. The packers have been aided by a weak schedule an division....FACT. I've said eli manning does it when it matters more often than not...FACT, and that isn't just on the superbowl. The 3 games before he was faultless an in plenty of games he's brought us back to win in the 4th quarter on final drives. Does rodgers have a winning record as a starting qb? .
Rodgers has been in 1 game i imagine you'd call important, this week just gone. We didn't win but apart from the first play INT he was excellent. Throwing for 422 yards and getting 5 TD's. The fact we couldn't stop anything and the refs incompetance stopped the potential to win. He's "done it" in his 1 game.
Eli did it on that run, no doubt, and he deserves credit for winning a SB, but he is living of that reputation and has done little since. In reality he is significantly down the list in terms of QB's.
Yes, Rodgers has a winning record as a QB thanks. 17-16-0.
You've got a habit of getting things wrong then yourself. You've said we haven't beat a winning team, haven't won close games and inferred Rodgers has no winning record (i take it thats what the wink was for).
ST_CONROY wrote:Rodgers has been in 1 game i imagine you'd call important, this week just gone. We didn't win but apart from the first play INT he was excellent. Throwing for 422 yards and getting 5 TD's. The fact we couldn't stop anything and the refs incompetance stopped the potential to win. He's "done it" in his 1 game.
Eli did it on that run, no doubt, and he deserves credit for winning a SB, but he is living of that reputation and has done little since. In reality he is significantly down the list in terms of QB's.
Yes, Rodgers has a winning record as a QB thanks. 17-16-0.
You've got a habit of getting things wrong then yourself. You've said we haven't beat a winning team, haven't won close games and inferred Rodgers has no winning record (i take it thats what the wink was for).
I honestly wasn't sure. I knew it was close. To close it off, i think rodgers is a very good qb but just needs to add that clutch tag then he will be up there with peyton, brady, big ben, rivers, warner. I'm sure he will in time. As for eli, he needs to be able to put up big numbers like others to be up there with the big boys. Since winning the superbowl he's 20-13 with a division title and won in both pitt an arizona last year, and coming off his best year statistically, so he has done something.
Joined: May 23 2005 Posts: 31335 Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
Mark wrote:My brother supported the bears and he kinda got me into it. Mostly based around the original Madden game. You could get full kits in the old catalogues around 1990, plastic helmet etc. One was the bears and the other the Giants. We could never afford them though. It led to me liking all the New York franchises Giants, Yankees, Knicks and the Rangers(although not much interest in NHL). I had the Scott Norwood superbowl on VHS for ages, it's crazy when you look at the staff for that superbowl.
The old Madden (on mega drive) is what got me into footbawl. I never could get a side nailed in my head, until an abscure reference on the Simpsons, where Homer wanted to own the Dallas Cowboys. It stuck. We went to Tampa on holiday, and watched the Devil Rays, as they were then, and my brothers and sisters got themselves a Buccaneers shirt since they had an affection to Tampa. I went all round Florida looking for a Cowboys shirt.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
