Green Bay Packers Forum

Welcome to your Green Bay Packers Online Community!

Since 2006, PackersHome has been providing a unique experience for fans.
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
3 Pages<123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
warhawk  
#21 Posted : Thursday, February 13, 2014 3:46:51 PM(UTC)
I can't see McCarthy moving guys all over on the Oline. Ideally, they sign EDS and then:

See if Bahkitari makes that 2nd year leap and holds his job or if Bulaga earns it back. If not put Bulaga over at RT. That would actually be the ideal scenario if it panned out like that. Very little change (helps overall line play). Improved play at both tackle positions (helps overall line play too).

The wild card would be Sherrod with the talent he has that he has not been able to show to this point but that's certainly not a bad thing.

Again, I can't see them screwing around with the Oline. Arod went down for half the year and it was a disaster so IMO the last thing they will do is move people all over the place.

And precisely why the will sign EDS. They know he can play and he happens to squat right in front of the guy that nobody can ever say again this team can win consistently without.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DakotaT  
#22 Posted : Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:06:55 PM(UTC)
I'd don't think resigning EDS is a bad idea, and just going with the boys we currently have on the roster. We have three decent tackles, and I have my fingers crossed that Sherrod makes it all the way back and earns the LT position, but I'm good with Bacteria too. It's a dream to have a line like the Sherminator gave us, but I'd rather go heavy on defense this off season, cause that side of the ball needs the attention.
Wade  
#23 Posted : Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:18:43 PM(UTC)
(shaking head)

I actually like EDS. I don't think he's the weakest link of the OL.

I think he's really good ... for a backup position.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but debating between players who have demonstrated, at most, that they qualify as "serviceable" and those who might have "potential" for more, is a recipe for disaster.

The goal should not be to have an adequate OL. It should never be to have an adequate line. It should never be to have a serviceable OL. The goal should be to have a dominant line. A great line.

A great line makes an offense unstoppable. A serviceable line threatens the health of the Hall of Fame quarterback that is essential to that unstoppable offense.

Yes, the defense is a bigger train wreck. So it has to be a bigger priority overall. But however much of that train wreck can be cleaned up in one off season, it doesn't matter if Rodgers gets hurt. And, ISTM, if you approach the OL as "we're ok with serviceable and waiting for Tretter or Bahktiari or some pre-March "free agent servicable guys" to improve it, you're just risking #12 again.

The Packers were lucky that the injury last year was a collarbone. What if the next one is to the throwing shoulder or elbow? Or a concussion? Or a major knee injury?

Quarterbacks get injured. It's a reality of the game. But IMO you ought to be doing everything you can to ensure that they face as few hits as possible. And if you are continually content with combinations of "serviceable" and "potential for growth" and "late round picks", IMO you aren't doing everything you can.

IMO the Packers aren't going to be bona fide championship contender until they fix the defense. But they are also just one missed block away from having the same issues at quarterback as every other team in the NFC North.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#24 Posted : Thursday, February 13, 2014 4:19:01 PM(UTC)
We were marginally decent in the interior last year, and horrible at OT. Ideally, as was said, Sherrod can play like a first rounder and Bulaga can play like he did several years ago. That would take care of things, but it is way short of a sure thing. I have no confidence in Bakhtiari, and Barclay is back up quality at best.

As for Center, like somebody said, if EDS signs, he will start. I think they are letting him shop around, and if nobody offers him what he wants, the Packers will sign him for less. That seems to say they think highly of Tretter.

As for the original topic, probably it's just sour grapes/excuses from the Van Roten people, but there is a chance the Packers did tell him that, and they don't care if EDS does leave. I'd hate to see that, because he did do a serviceable job, and Tretter is a unproven.

The bottom line, though, is that with Aaron Rodgers, Eddie Lacy, and our wideouts, we simply don't need all that great an O Line to have one of the best offenses in the NFL. Sure, I'd like it to get better, but the fact is, we don't absolutely need it.
buckeyepackfan  
#25 Posted : Thursday, February 13, 2014 5:25:56 PM(UTC)
Wade said: Go to Quoted Post
(shaking head)

I actually like EDS. I don't think he's the weakest link of the OL.

I think he's really good ... for a backup position.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but debating between players who have demonstrated, at most, that they qualify as "serviceable" and those who might have "potential" for more, is a recipe for disaster.

The goal should not be to have an adequate OL. It should never be to have an adequate line. It should never be to have a serviceable OL. The goal should be to have a dominant line. A great line.

A great line makes an offense unstoppable. A serviceable line threatens the health of the Hall of Fame quarterback that is essential to that unstoppable offense.

Yes, the defense is a bigger train wreck. So it has to be a bigger priority overall. But however much of that train wreck can be cleaned up in one off season, it doesn't matter if Rodgers gets hurt. And, ISTM, if you approach the OL as "we're ok with serviceable and waiting for Tretter or Bahktiari or some pre-March "free agent servicable guys" to improve it, you're just risking #12 again.

The Packers were lucky that the injury last year was a collarbone. What if the next one is to the throwing shoulder or elbow? Or a concussion? Or a major knee injury?

Quarterbacks get injured. It's a reality of the game. But IMO you ought to be doing everything you can to ensure that they face as few hits as possible. And if you are continually content with combinations of "serviceable" and "potential for growth" and "late round picks", IMO you aren't doing everything you can.

IMO the Packers aren't going to be bona fide championship contender until they fix the defense. But they are also just one missed block away from having the same issues at quarterback as every other team in the NFC North.


Then what is the answer?
The Packers have committed to the players on the roster, everyone of the O-line I mentioned are under contract except EDS.
Is there a better option available via Free Agency?
and if there is, can The Packers afford to sign that option without blowing up the salary cap?
Wade  
#26 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 2:45:21 PM(UTC)
buckeyepackfan said: Go to Quoted Post
Then what is the answer?
The Packers have committed to the players on the roster, everyone of the O-line I mentioned are under contract except EDS.
Is there a better option available via Free Agency?
and if there is, can The Packers afford to sign that option without blowing up the salary cap?


That, sir, is exactly my point. The Packers commitment has been to "serviceable" and "development of potential" for years. There is, alas, no route to OL dominance that isn't going to take 2-3 years or multiple major free agent acquisitions.

Exactly like it has been for a nine years. I don't expect Ted Thompson to be able to make a dominant OL in 1 year. But he's had 9. And you apologists are making exactly the same arguments they were making in his first year.

Nine years of one home run (Sitton) and "serviceable" and "potential" ls not a commitment to greatness. It is being content with average.

I am *not* calling for TT's head. That's silly. But, IMO, he does need to do something, something major with the way the team decides on its OL roster. Maybe its more free agency, maybe its shaking up the personnel department and getting better scouts of OL players, maybe its telling McCarthy he needs to replace Campen and find someone who can develop that annual potential into dominance. Maybe it's some combination of all three.

I don't know.

I just don't think that anyone should be content with the approach that has been used for the OL for the last 9 years.

"Serviceable" is for also-rans. Nine years of "potential" that has developed into something between "mediocre" and "serviceable" is being content with woulda-coulda-shoulda.

More is expected.
Zero2Cool  
#27 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 2:56:22 PM(UTC)
Daryn Colledge was the other home run and the dipstick Thompson let him go to the Cardinals where he's been stellar. Imagine if the Packer still had both Sitton and College manning the G position? My lord!

LT- Sherrod
LG - Colledge
C - Fred Flinstone
RG - Sitton
RT - Bulaga


And then you have that #69 David B. as top T backup. Not friggin bad at all.


BTW, Packers can't get too big at Center because Rodgers prefers a certain butt height. n0j0ke
Wade  
#28 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 3:21:09 PM(UTC)
Yes, yes, Mrs. Colledge, we know how you feel about your main squeeze. [grin1]

By the way, I just looked up some past drafts. Even Bart Starr (who everyone, including him, agrees was over his head as GM) had more players (one) play up to their "potential" after being drafted than Ted Thompson in less than half the time.

Greg Koch wasn't a Hall of Famer, but compared to what Bulaga, Colledge, Bahktiari, et al have shown, he was a stud OT for years.

Again, if you are content for almost a decade with the Colledges (even the St. Louis version, rofl), Bulagas (as shown so far), Langs, and Bahktiari (as shown so far), then you are insufficiently committed to your quarterback's health. IMO.

Overall, Starr was abysmal as GM and Ted Thompson has been very good. Starr needed to be fired, and Ted Thompson does not. But in this one area, assessment of and acquisition and development of OL talent, I'm not sure Ted Thompson is any better than Starr was. If he is, the difference is measurable in millimeters.



GermanGilbert  
#29 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 3:46:52 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
Daryn Colledge was the other home run and the dipstick Thompson let him go to the Cardinals where he's been stellar. Imagine if the Packer still had both Sitton and College manning the G position? My lord!

LT- Sherrod
LG - Colledge
C - Fred Flinstone
RG - Sitton
RT - Bulaga


Don't forget that former Packers OT who just earned his SB ring a few days ago ;)
steveishere  
#30 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 3:53:20 PM(UTC)
Wade said: Go to Quoted Post

Nine years of one home run (Sitton) and "serviceable" and "potential" ls not a commitment to greatness. It is being content with average.

.


The problem is you call players like Lang and EDS "serviceable" or "back up quality" when they are clearly better than that. Nobody has an o-line filled with Sitton quality players and that's just ridiculous if that's your standard. I'd say there are few if any teams that even have all Lang quality players.
nerdmann  
#31 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 4:12:41 PM(UTC)
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
The problem is you call players like Lang and EDS "serviceable" or "back up quality" when they are clearly better than that. Nobody has an o-line filled with Sitton quality players and that's just ridiculous if that's your standard. I'd say there are few if any teams that even have all Lang quality players.


Agreed. What other team could have made the playoffs with their 3rd, 4th and 5th string Ts?

Not only that, but you all forget. When Mike first got here, he was requesting "smaller, quicker" Olinemen. That's what Mike wanted for his zBS scheme. It worked like shit, so later they changed to looking for "bigger stronger" guys. Since then, They've been doing quite well.

This past season we've seen how good the depth is. When Ted's 4th rounder starts at LT and performs better than the top two picks in the draft (who played RT btw) that's a pretty damn good pick. And that's pretty damn good depth.

Shit, what did Don Barclay cost us in the draft? Nothing.
Wade  
#32 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 6:08:32 PM(UTC)
Just don't bitch to me when Rodgers goes down to a concussion when one of those Packer linemen you consider adequate lets Suh, Allen, or whoever get past them again. And don't bitch to me when a top team like Seattle or San Francisco keeps Rodgers trying to escape too much and keeps that all-world offense of that Packers from advancing deep into the playoffs.

I don't expect everyone to be at Sitton's level. But to my mind there is not just a drop off to Lang, et al, but a major drop off. IMO if you are content with five Langs, your standards are too low.

That most teams might be content with five Langs is irrelevant to me. Most teams aren't serious championship contenders and wouldn't be with five Langs either.

And that's what I want. I want a team that everyone puts in the top four teams of the league every year. Not just a playoff contender, a team that people expect to contend for at least a conference championship.

A dominant team.

Champions aren't content with being good. They aren't content with being better than most teams. They aren't content, period. Champions strive to be dominant.

They may fall short. They may not be able to dominate everywhere. But when they aren't, they don't stop trying to upgrade themselves. They don't feel content with depending on a quarterback's all-world escapability and arm to get himself out of bad situations over and over again.

Content? Content IMO is for sixth seeds.




thanks Post received 2 applause.
nerdmann  
#33 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 6:15:47 PM(UTC)
Wade said: Go to Quoted Post
Just don't bitch to me when Rodgers goes down to a concussion when one of those Packer linemen you consider adequate lets Suh, Allen, or whoever get past them again. And don't bitch to me when a top team like Seattle or San Francisco keeps Rodgers trying to escape too much and keeps that all-world offense of that Packers from advancing deep into the playoffs.

I don't expect everyone to be at Sitton's level. But to my mind there is not just a drop off to Lang, et al, but a major drop off. IMO if you are content with five Langs, your standards are too low.

That most teams might be content with five Langs is irrelevant to me. Most teams aren't serious championship contenders and wouldn't be with five Langs either.

And that's what I want. I want a team that everyone puts in the top four teams of the league every year. Not just a playoff contender, a team that people expect to contend for at least a conference championship.

A dominant team.

Champions aren't content with being good. They aren't content with being better than most teams. They aren't content, period. Champions strive to be dominant.

They may fall short. They may not be able to dominate everywhere. But when they aren't, they don't stop trying to upgrade themselves. They don't feel content with depending on a quarterback's all-world escapability and arm to get himself out of bad situations over and over again.

Content? Content IMO is for sixth seeds.






Lang wasn't far behind Sitton this year, imo.

Suh and those guys pushed us around a bit, but that was only because EDS went down and Lang had to play C that game. Then they stuck in NEWHOUSE at G.

And yet that game was still closer than you probably remember.
Wade  
#34 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 6:17:34 PM(UTC)
Yeah, they made playoffs despite injuries.

And how many playoff games have they won since 2010?

Would they have made it any farther in the playoffs had they had no injuries on the OL at all? Under the "any given sunday" rule, sure, anything's possible. Under the rule that "team's that go farther in the playoffs are the better teams", not in this fan's opinion.

Injuries are an effing excuse. This team had major questions *before* the injuries happened.







thanks Post received 1 applause.
Wade  
#35 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 6:25:41 PM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
Lang wasn't far behind Sitton this year, imo.



Whatever you say.

I bet Lacy doesn't consider him that close to Sitton. Look where Lacy makes contact with defensive players when he runs to Sitton's side, and its probably 2-4 yards farther than when he runs to Lang's side.

Pass protection might be a little closer. But that's as much because Bahktiari was worse than Barclay (and so Sitton had to do more) than it is because Lang is good.

IMO Lang and Bulaga are the offensive linemen most consistently over-rated by Packer fans. IMO they look better than they are because they have been operating next to Newhouse, Bahktiari, Barclay, and/or each other.

thanks Post received 1 applause.
steveishere  
#36 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 7:55:19 PM(UTC)
Wade said: Go to Quoted Post
Just don't bitch to me when Rodgers goes down to a concussion when one of those Packer linemen you consider adequate lets Suh, Allen, or whoever get past them again. And don't bitch to me when a top team like Seattle or San Francisco keeps Rodgers trying to escape too much and keeps that all-world offense of that Packers from advancing deep into the playoffs.

I don't expect everyone to be at Sitton's level. But to my mind there is not just a drop off to Lang, et al, but a major drop off. IMO if you are content with five Langs, your standards are too low.

That most teams might be content with five Langs is irrelevant to me. Most teams aren't serious championship contenders and wouldn't be with five Langs either.

And that's what I want. I want a team that everyone puts in the top four teams of the league every year. Not just a playoff contender, a team that people expect to contend for at least a conference championship.

A dominant team.

Champions aren't content with being good. They aren't content with being better than most teams. They aren't content, period. Champions strive to be dominant.

They may fall short. They may not be able to dominate everywhere. But when they aren't, they don't stop trying to upgrade themselves. They don't feel content with depending on a quarterback's all-world escapability and arm to get himself out of bad situations over and over again.

Content? Content IMO is for sixth seeds.






It's not about being content it's about what's an actual reasonable possibility. If the problem was being content then we wouldn't have dropped 2 contracts on our Gs and spent consecutive 1st round picks on Ts. Our OL this year was every bit as good as Seattles was even with the injuries so don't give me this "championship contenders" BS. You say we tend to overrate Lang and Bulaga and that may be so but you also seem to severely underrate them. Major drop off my ass, maybe Sitton blows him away in run blocking but Sitton is also a top 3 G in the league. Even if you are right and there's a "major drop off" between the 2 the point is there isn't any drop off between Lang and most of the rest of the NFL he's at least an above average G and so was Bulaga at T when he was actually healthy. If there's a huge drop off between Sitton and Lang then there's a similar drop off between Sitton and almost everyone else so who cares?

LOL you act like there's only 2 levels of play there's guys like Sitton (who are ok) and everyone else who isn't good enough. That's not a "championship mentality" it's just ridiculousness.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
buckeyepackfan  
#37 Posted : Friday, February 14, 2014 9:19:09 PM(UTC)
Wade said: Go to Quoted Post
(shaking head)

I actually like EDS. I don't think he's the weakest link of the OL.

I think he's really good ... for a backup position.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but debating between players who have demonstrated, at most, that they qualify as "serviceable" and those who might have "potential" for more, is a recipe for disaster.

The goal should not be to have an adequate OL. It should never be to have an adequate line. It should never be to have a serviceable OL. The goal should be to have a dominant line. A great line.

A great line makes an offense unstoppable. A serviceable line threatens the health of the Hall of Fame quarterback that is essential to that unstoppable offense.

Yes, the defense is a bigger train wreck. So it has to be a bigger priority overall. But however much of that train wreck can be cleaned up in one off season, it doesn't matter if Rodgers gets hurt. And, ISTM, if you approach the OL as "we're ok with serviceable and waiting for Tretter or Bahktiari or some pre-March "free agent servicable guys" to improve it, you're just risking #12 again.

The Packers were lucky that the injury last year was a collarbone. What if the next one is to the throwing shoulder or elbow? Or a concussion? Or a major knee injury?

Quarterbacks get injured. It's a reality of the game. But IMO you ought to be doing everything you can to ensure that they face as few hits as possible. And if you are continually content with combinations of "serviceable" and "potential for growth" and "late round picks", IMO you aren't doing everything you can.

IMO the Packers aren't going to be bona fide championship contender until they fix the defense. But they are also just one missed block away from having the same issues at quarterback as every other team in the NFC North.


You keep blaming the O-line for the injury, watch the play, the line (especially Barclay) did exactly what they were supposed to do. Aaron saw an opening and broke out of the pocket, Barclay was screwed at that point, his back was to Aaron, the defender saw immediately where Aaron was going, and broke away from Barclay.
Nobody's playing dumb here, the line needs to improve, but that play, that night, that injury, cannot be put on the O-line.

Go back and look at some of the really good O-line in history, I think you will find they do not consist of 5 great players at their positions, but they are made up of guys who have been together 2 or 3 years.

5 men playing as 1 unit.

That is why I keep saying EDS needs to stay, get Bulaga back, get a chance to see what Sherrard can do, everyone stays healthy, from top to bottom, The Packers are set to have one of the better O-lines in the league.



http://www.nfl.com/video...rs-vs-Packers-highlights
Zero2Cool  
#38 Posted : Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:28:54 AM(UTC)
Wade said: Go to Quoted Post
Again, if you are content for almost a decade with the Colledges (even the St. Louis version, rofl), Bulagas (as shown so far), Langs, and Bahktiari (as shown so far), then you are insufficiently committed to your quarterback's health. IMO.


If Aaron Rodgers was quicker with this reads and decisions, the OL wouldn't be much of a topic at all. Look at when Brett Favre was here or look at Peyton Manning. They both released the ball after 2-3 seconds. Rodgers holds it too long. Why do you think Rodgers is so sensitive about it? Because he knows it and "can't" change it.

Remember 2010 Patriots game? People said OMG the OL is playing great! Wrong. Matt Flynn was releasing the ball right away on quick reads so yeah of course the OL is gonna look good.


Since Rodgers won't improve on that area... lets look at the draft.

Source: http://packershome.com/Draft.aspx

2013 two 4th rounders
2012 7th rounder
2011 1st and 6th rounder
2010 1st and 5th rounder
2009 4th and 5th rounder
2008 4th and 5th rounder
2007 4th rounder
2006 2nd, 3rd and 5th rounder
2005 5th and 7th rounder


The OL isn't the fault of Ted Thompson. The OL staff cannot develop the talent!

Every player in the draft has talent. Every player in the NFL has talent. COACHES responsibilities are to get the MOST out of that talent.


So all of this "draft more OL" is completely naive and avoiding the root problem. The coaches. Until the Packers have a coaching staff that can develop the players to reach their potential, and we have a QB who holds the ball too long ... the Packers OL will always look like garbage. One issue with this country is we always wanna put bandaids on things. A quick fix if you will. There is no quick fix. There is no draft more OL to fix the problem. The problem is NOT the players. It's the damn coaching staff!!


thanks Post received 1 applause.
play2win  
#39 Posted : Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:33:40 AM(UTC)
buckeyepackfan said: Go to Quoted Post
You keep blaming the O-line for the injury, watch the play, the line (especially Barclay) did exactly what they were supposed to do. Aaron saw an opening and broke out of the pocket, Barclay was screwed at that point, his back was to Aaron, the defender saw immediately where Aaron was going, and broke away from Barclay.
Nobody's playing dumb here, the line needs to improve, but that play, that night, that injury, cannot be put on the O-line.

Go back and look at some of the really good O-line in history, I think you will find they do not consist of 5 great players at their positions, but they are made up of guys who have been together 2 or 3 years.

5 men playing as 1 unit.

That is why I keep saying EDS needs to stay, get Bulaga back, get a chance to see what Sherrard can do, everyone stays healthy, from top to bottom, The Packers are set to have one of the better O-lines in the league.



http://www.nfl.com/video...rs-vs-Packers-highlights


I don't know man. Our OL was indeed responsible for Aaron having to break out of the pocket. Moreso Bakhtiari being manhandled by Peppers, forcing Rodgers out to his right, than Barclay. There was no pocket. Peppers blew it up inside.
Wade  
#40 Posted : Saturday, February 15, 2014 8:41:40 AM(UTC)
steveishere said: Go to Quoted Post
It's not about being content it's about what's an actual reasonable possibility. If the problem was being content then we wouldn't have dropped 2 contracts on our Gs and spent consecutive 1st round picks on Ts. Our OL this year was every bit as good as Seattles was even with the injuries so don't give me this "championship contenders" BS. You say we tend to overrate Lang and Bulaga and that may be so but you also seem to severely underrate them. Major drop off my ass, maybe Sitton blows him away in run blocking but Sitton is also a top 3 G in the league. Even if you are right and there's a "major drop off" between the 2 the point is there isn't any drop off between Lang and most of the rest of the NFL he's at least an above average G and so was Bulaga at T when he was actually healthy. If there's a huge drop off between Sitton and Lang then there's a similar drop off between Sitton and almost everyone else so who cares?

LOL you act like there's only 2 levels of play there's guys like Sitton (who are ok) and everyone else who isn't good enough. That's not a "championship mentality" it's just ridiculousness.


Did you read what I said at all? My point about "big gap between Sitton and Lang" is the point that there are multiple levels of play. I do NOT believe we have to get Sitton level players to improve over the performance of Lang, Bulaga, et al.

There have been great offensive lines, and none of them have been All-Pros across the line. But all of them have been better, a lot better, than the Packer OL during the Thompson/McCarthy years.

I'm sorry, but the "we can't afford more" won't wash with me. Not over a nine year period. Yeah, they have a lot of money invested in Lang. They also have a lot of money invested in Brad Jones. Sometimes money is badly invested. Nine years of putting your NFL money in the Langs and Jones of the world is evidence of bad investment strategy.

The Packers may have no way of paying for improvement in the OL this year. Given the problems on defense, I won't dispute this.

But, one last time, this has not been a one year failure. This has been close to a decade of inability to put together a dominant line.

Call it being content, call it being frugal, call it being satisfied, blame it on injuries, blame it on being left in salary cap hell by Sherman, blame it on not being able to draft high enough, blame it on not coaching people up enough, call it whatever you damn want. Whatever you blame it on, the Packers have not had a dominant offensive line in the entire Ted Thompson/Mike McCarthy era.

I call it unacceptable.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123>
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Notification

Icon
Error


Fan Shout
The_Green_Ninja (18-Feb) : out of curiosity... did any ever by the Starr Favre and Rodgers photo... and has a good scanner?
uffda udfa (17-Feb) : NFL Network showing GB at Dallas. Packers programming all day.
uffda udfa (17-Feb) : Julius Peppers appears done with Packers per Demovsky.
Cheesey (16-Feb) : If the spot was so bad, he wouldnt still be going there.
uffda udfa (15-Feb) : Best of luck at your new fishing hole, Buck.
buckeyepackfan (15-Feb) : "they always do" "good luck with that" I said to him as I walked away and headed to my other favorite hole!
buckeyepackfan (15-Feb) : "Nah" he said , I'm much snarter than these fish, sooner or later they will start biting! They akways
buckeyepackfan (15-Feb) : "Maybe you should try another spot" I said to him each day.
buckeyepackfan (15-Feb) : Each day I asked him gow they were biting. "Not very well" was his reply each day
buckeyepackfan (15-Feb) : For the third day in a row, I went to my favorite fishing spot. The same guy was there everyday
uffda udfa (14-Feb) : Interesting. Why would he leave the team that has the greatest need at CB?
Zero2Cool (14-Feb) : Former Packers corner Bené Benwikere signs with Bengals, per report
Please sign in to use Fan Shout

2016 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 11 @ 12:00 PM
at Jaguars
Sunday, Sep 18 @ 7:30 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Sep 25 @ 12:00 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Oct 2 @ 12:00 AM
BYE
Sunday, Oct 9 @ 7:30 PM
GIANTS
Sunday, Oct 16 @ 3:25 PM
COWBOYS
Thursday, Oct 20 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 30 @ 3:25 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Nov 6 @ 3:25 PM
COLTS
Sunday, Nov 13 @ 12:00 PM
at Titans
Sunday, Nov 20 @ 7:30 PM
at Redskins
Monday, Nov 28 @ 7:30 PM
at Eagles
Sunday, Dec 4 @ 12:00 PM
TEXANS
Sunday, Dec 11 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Dec 18 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Saturday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Jan 1 @ 7:30 PM
at Lions

Think About It
Think About It

Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

2h / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

16h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

21h / Community Welcome! / wpr

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

19-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

19-Feb / Around The NFL / uffda udfa

18-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / Barfarn

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / warhawk

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

17-Feb / Green Bay Packers Talk / TedThompsonsShades


Packers Headlines