Super Bowl XLV Champions!

[ForkEmBucky]

I don't know. This is not the first time that the passing game was off in cold weather. We go into the playoffs with home field advantage, play in the bitter ass cold, and somebody runs all over us, could be a real bummer....

I mean I know I should be excited about the win, and I am really proud of the way they play under duress, but they have GOT to find a way to either run the ball and keep offenses off the field, or buckle down that defensive front.

 

[tk83]

Not really afraid offense will tank [but they need to be able to run at some point].
I'm more concerned the defense's shortcomings will bite 'em.

Still, they are 12-0!

 

[johnnytata]

honestly, i think it's a myth that passing offenses are worse off in bad weather.

in general, offenses are better off in bad weather, you see it all the time. i remember one year when the cowboys came into green bay and they played in a mudfest, i think the packers put up something like 40 points that day. the player that knows where they're going always has an advantage over the player that is reacting.

that being said, i think you can look over the past 15-20 years and see that the packers offense, which has been primarily pass oriented since favre took over in 92, has generally fared fine in the cold weather.

also, if you look at some specific factors for this team, rodgers throws one of the tightest spirals in the nfl, which generally cuts through wind much better, so his velocity won't drop off much, and tighter spirals are easier to catch (yesterday notwithstanding). furthermore, i think the biggest effect the cold will have is in make the ball a bit more slippery, which, with this team's history of drops, could be an issue, but i think they got a bitter enough dose of that yesterday, that it will be corrected, and anyway, this offense has shown that regardless of 4 or 6 or 8 drops, they can still overcome and score points almost at will.

another point, i think running is really overrated. remember the packers don't need to run for production, they need to run only to set up the threat of the run. their play action is so deadly, and no one runs it better than rodgers, that the cold air and turf will actually enhance this part of their game, because once a defense gets going in the wrong direction, i think it will be harder to react.

finally, what has killed this packer team in the playoffs in past years? ill-timed mistakes, mostly by the qb. i think the current qb has proven his mettle there.

so once again, i have no concerns about the packers offense in cold weather, mostly their defense where miscommunications, blown coverages are going to be deadly and tackling will be much harder.

one thing i will say is this, though, that there is not a single running attack in the league that is as efficient, proficient, productive or reliable as the packers passing offense. what i mean is that even the best running offense in the league would still have to score on 80% of it's chances to beat the packers, and i don't think one exists.

sorry for the long post, but thanks for listening.

 

[tk83]

Well put, JTT.

 

[johnnytata]

Well put, JTT.

Thanks man, and thanks for slogging through my rambling. I just think we get caught up in the talking-head propaganda/dogma, when the reality is riht in front of us. Everyone wants to tak about what will beat the packers, when the reality is that nothing has yet to beat the packers. Theyve already played in bad weather and won, hey've played a proficient passing offense and won. They've played against teams that have run the ball and controlled the clock and won. Theyve played against good run and pass defenses and won.

The only opponent we haven't seen them against is themselves, ie making too many mistakes to overcome, because that will be the only way they lose.

Lets just play an example out, lets say san fran comes into lambeau and gore runs for 200, does that guarantee that they'll score on every possession. Or that they'll score on more possessions than the packers? No it doesn't. They'll actually be hurting themselves by shortening the game, because they'll have fewer possessions, making each one that much more important to score on, and making each empty posession that much more damaging. Meanwhile, the packers still are a threat to score on every possession.

I think the key is not the style of offense, but the offensive EFFICIENCY. Packers score on 80% of their drives, and mostly get touchdowns, regardless of the opponents' style of offense, that's what they'll need to match. And if they happen to turn the ball over, forget it, they have no chance.

Shit i'm going on and on again, but i think you get my point.

 

[tk83]

Excellent point about a strong running game potentially hurting the opposition.

Hey, as long as we don't listen to too much Skip Bayless, a little opinion from the talking heads is alright.
[that idiot really seems to believe Tim Tebow is a better qb than Aaron!]

 

[ForkEmBucky]

Excellent points around here. Jeeze it's like you guys are smart or something.

 

[tk83]

Hey Bucky - how about that Rose Bowl game?

 

[ForkEmBucky]

Hey Bucky - how about that Rose Bowl game?

Wish I was going. I'm a little worried about that punt/kick coverage unit against Oregon's special teamers....

But I think our defensive strengths actually line up with theirs a little better than they did against MSU. Oregon likes a lot of screens and outside the tackle stuff. Borland and Taylor will be busy, but they can handle it. Our defensive line might not be as big a liability unless Oregon is more capable of a power run game than I think they are. I also don't really think they're a deep threat to expose our cornerbacks.

Badgers have a legit shot. Wilson and the offense will try to eat up a ton of time.

 

[tk83]

I agree, Bucky. Man, too bad Wilson only has this year. But what a year it was.

 

[ForkEmBucky]

I agree, Bucky. Man, too bad Wilson only has this year. But what a year it was.

I'd like to see him back up Rodgers for a couple years now, and then make a name for himself with a team that we don't have play.

 

[johnnytata]

Thank tebow for russell wilson.


Such a shame we only get to see him fornone year.

Would love to see him in a packers uni, but would he be a third stringer, i see him as more of a second string guy. Pretty sure harrell will be no 2 next year.

 

[ForkEmBucky]

Harrell sucks, you heard it here first.

 

[ritari330]

I think over the next few weeks, they get the running game going a little bit more. Just my thouhgts, sorry I haven't posted much recently, but I'll try to not be a stranger so often

 

[ForkEmBucky]

I'd like to see them get the running game going a little stronger. That would make the offense even more destructive to our despicable NFC North opponents.

 

[tk83]

Harrell sucks, you heard it here first.

At least Justin is gone!

 

[johnnytata]

Unconfirmed report of torn mcl for jennings. Pro football talk reporting on sunday night football.

If true, that sucks donkey balls.

 

[johnnytata]

and for the record. i think braun is innocent.

why would he use PEDs? makes no sense. he's never failed a drug test in his career, and the minor leagues drug testing policy has been established for many years. so, he either decided to start using them after he had already had an mvp caliber season, or after years of knowing how to beat the tests, he suddenly got stupid. neither explanation makes any sense.

i'm sure he'll still end up with some kind of suspension, but not for PED's.

 

[tk83]

No PEDs?
Then what could you possibly suspend him for?

The sad thing is, his reputation is forever blemished, no matter what.

 

[johnnytata]

the report said it was some other banned substance.

the reports are strange. i thought i saw one report that said that MLB administration agreed that he was innocent!