SportsBubbler.com

well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

Last post 10-21-2008 1:09 PM by robertj44. 299 replies.
Page 1 of 20 (300 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 10-05-2008 3:26 PM

    well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

     how bad does it have to get before the blind can see the light?

  • 10-05-2008 3:31 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    If you are a true Packer fan, it doesn't matter if they are 2-14, you still root for them.  They are pretty banged up on defense.  If you look at the glass being half full, the receiving corps is healthy again, and the running game is starting to improve.  I don't hang this L on Rodgers.  Moreso on the run Defense, and D play calling.  That Punter has got to go!!!!

  • 10-05-2008 3:36 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    lambeaulambo:

    If you are a true Packer fan, it doesn't matter if they are 2-14, you still root for them.  They are pretty banged up on defense.  If you look at the glass being half full, the receiving corps is healthy again, and the running game is starting to improve.  I don't hang this L on Rodgers.  Moreso on the run Defense, and D play calling.  That Punter has got to go!!!!

    ]

    lol you did not just go there.....wow.     not rodgers fault at all, its ted and mikes fault,big time.

  • 10-05-2008 3:36 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

     Lol, I thought Ki1ne started this thread.

    Where's cheesefvck and his "2-3", tie for 2nd in the north" comment? LOL

    Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.
    Karl Marx
  • 10-05-2008 3:43 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    lambeaulambo:

     I don't hang this L on Rodgers. 

    Maybe not but would we have been better off w/ Brett Favre at quarterback this year?  No effing doubt.

  • 10-05-2008 3:46 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    shipitdear:

    lambeaulambo:

     I don't hang this L on Rodgers. 

    Maybe not but would we have been better off w/ Brett Favre at quarterback this year?  No effing doubt.

     

    like i have said who switches QBs when that close to a superbowl?   favre, rodgers, flynn sounds a lot better than rodgers, rook, rook.

  • 10-05-2008 3:50 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    quicksdraw:

    shipitdear:

    lambeaulambo:

     I don't hang this L on Rodgers. 

    Maybe not but would we have been better off w/ Brett Favre at quarterback this year?  No effing doubt.

     

    like i have said who switches QBs when that close to a superbowl?   favre, rodgers, flynn sounds a lot better than rodgers, rook, rook.

    To anyone objective it would.  But TT/MM had a better idea.  And it's blowing up in their fukking faces. Favre in KC and Denver last year makes the plays to win those games.  Rodgers down 20/17 w/ 4:42 left throws pick.  Maybe you can't "hang this L on Rodgers"; but you can't hang a W on him either, can you?
  • 10-05-2008 3:52 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    shipitdear:

    lambeaulambo:

     I don't hang this L on Rodgers. 

    Maybe not but would we have been better off w/ Brett Favre at quarterback this year?  No effing doubt.

    Hey shipit,

    I understand that everyone has their own opinion, but I just don't get this one.

    What does Brett do that Rodgers doesn't at this point?

    Rodgers throws a better deep ball.  He completes just as many passes and it's not like Favre protects the ball very well.

    I don't think Favre would have completed that ball to Driver.

    Favre probably completes that ball to Jennings when Rodgers left it short, but that's the only play where I think it would have mattered.

    The defense was absolutely terrible.  The playcalling was bad.  Favre couldn't fix those things.

    "It's been a long, long time comin'
    But I know a change gonna come, yes it will"
  • 10-05-2008 3:55 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    ike1024:


    I don't think Favre would have completed that ball to Driver.

     

    Favre could have completed it off his back foot. 

     

    Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.
    Karl Marx
  • 10-05-2008 3:57 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    ike1024:

    What does Brett do that Rodgers doesn't at this point?

     

    The offense is more in synch, that's what. Why do we lead the league in holding penalties? It is the same line. Why can't we run the ball? Same line. Favre gives them more confidence and continuity...that's what he gives them that Rodgers lacks.
  • 10-05-2008 3:59 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    ike1024:

    shipitdear:

    lambeaulambo:

     I don't hang this L on Rodgers. 

    Maybe not but would we have been better off w/ Brett Favre at quarterback this year?  No effing doubt.

    Hey shipit,

    I understand that everyone has their own opinion, but I just don't get this one.

    What does Brett do that Rodgers doesn't at this point?

    Rodgers throws a better deep ball.  He completes just as many passes and it's not like Favre protects the ball very well.

    I don't think Favre would have completed that ball to Driver.

    Favre probably completes that ball to Jennings when Rodgers left it short, but that's the only play where I think it would have mattered.

    The defense was absolutely terrible.  The playcalling was bad.  Favre couldn't fix those things.

     

    i agree with this up to the favre couldnt fix those things.  the problem with that is the pack could have have lost by 4 tds while favre tried to fix it.  favre takes more chances and changes the play more at the line and has 16 years experience doing it.   i have no bad things to say about rodgers, he is fine its tt and mm that are the problem and its becoming more apparent every week.

  • 10-05-2008 4:01 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    tankduke3:

    ike1024:


    I don't think Favre would have completed that ball to Driver.

     

    Favre could have completed it off his back foot. 

     

    And his eyes closed......  with his hands tied behind his back......  

    Maybe Favre would have played D.....

    I like how we can find 2 games where Brett made the difference......  2 f'n games last year....  seriously, maybe that was the play calling and the element of surprise for thedeep ball?? 

    Rodgers threw the ball well today.....   To say Brett wins us this game is horseshlt though, what did he do the previous 4 years before last year, and how many INT's did he throw again..  Love your arguement thought.....   can you tell me how big  Brett's jock is again?? 

    Buff
  • 10-05-2008 4:02 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    tankduke3:

    ike1024:


    I don't think Favre would have completed that ball to Driver.

     

    Favre could have completed it off his back foot. 

     

    You apparently didn't watch overthrow/underthrow receivers on deep balls for 15 years.  He was great at certain things, throwing an accuarte deep ball was certainly not one of them.

    "It's been a long, long time comin'
    But I know a change gonna come, yes it will"
  • 10-05-2008 4:02 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    ike1024:

    shipitdear:

    lambeaulambo:

     I don't hang this L on Rodgers. 

    Maybe not but would we have been better off w/ Brett Favre at quarterback this year?  No effing doubt.

    Hey shipit,

    I understand that everyone has their own opinion, but I just don't get this one.

    What does Brett do that Rodgers doesn't at this point?

    Rodgers throws a better deep ball.  He completes just as many passes and it's not like Favre protects the ball very well.

    I don't think Favre would have completed that ball to Driver.

    Favre probably completes that ball to Jennings when Rodgers left it short, but that's the only play where I think it would have mattered.

    The defense was absolutely terrible.  The playcalling was bad.  Favre couldn't fix those things.

    Favre rarely ever got hurt which had a lot to do w/ them losing at Tampa last week.  And even when Rodgers was in the game against TB it wasn't great- go and look at McGinn's qb rating and analysis, it's not pretty.  We are at least one game better if not two w/ Favre this year.  Those that don't want to see it, don't want to see it.
  • 10-05-2008 4:03 PM In reply to

    Re: well is it now 2-3 is not the end of the world?

    Seahawks are going to be in a surley mood next week......

Page 1 of 20 (300 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last »