Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
6 Pages<12345>»

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
mi_keys  
#41 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 3:44:15 AM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
There is nothing that says a 7'6 WR can't be found... there is no issue with height being a bad thing. However, there is an issue with not enough speed being an issue and you know that and I know that.


Not even remotely the point. I'm not saying you couldn't find a 7'6" receiver. I'm not saying height is a bad thing. I literally said the number was irrelevant, that this arbitrarily threshold could be read into however someone wanted, but that it wasn't a meaningful statistic.

It was selected to illustrate that you could read into a meaningless statistic something that was false or irrelevant. You proceeded to do just that.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Most guys who run 4.65+ aren't going to be WR's. Correct?


Yes. Per my first response, I posted a sample size that suggests very few receivers run slower than 4.65. Assuming that sample size is remotely representative, very few receivers run slower than 4.65.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Why is it so wrong to be concerned when we have guys who are closer to it rather than further away? I don't think Davante Adams can't be a very good WR because of his 4.56 speed.


You've established no evidence that suggests we should be concerned with a 4.56 second 40. None. Maybe it is out there. But if it is, you've not made the case.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
However, I think he'd be an even better and more attractive one if he ran 4.36. Right?


Straw man. No one is arguing that, all other relevant factors being equal, that being faster wouldn't help a receiver. This is true if you say that all else being equal a higher vertical or a better shuttle time or a longer broad jump or a higher bench press or a better wonderlic score wouldn't be beneficial. This argument doesn't warrant one of those statistics being taken head and shoulders above the others.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Would the Packers have ever picked up Sam Shields if he ran in the 4.6 range? No...he was added for his unique gift of speed.


I like how when it's undrafted free agent Sam Shields, he's given a chance because he's fast; but when it's undrafted free agent Jarrett Boykin, he fell through the draft because he's slow.


uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm not sure what the issue is with drafting it instead of UDFA'ing it?


No one said there's an issue with drafting speed.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Again, I was hopeful we'd find guys who were great prospects up high who had very good speed.


No issue with people having a personal preference for speed.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
We did not. We found two bottom end guys speed wise. That's disappointing to me...


Ok.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Dix can be thrown in there, also. Another middling speed guy. You aren't bothered by middle to low end speed prospects and I am.


And here's where people start to take issue. All you talk about is 40s, which are only a proxy for playing speed, and you completely discount all of the other factors that go into a good player. THAT's what people have hammered you for.

I'm bothered by someone who is slower and has no other redeeming qualities (or not enough redeeming qualities to net out as an above average to good player). I'm also bothered by someone who is fast but can't tackle, catch, block, hit or read the game.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Just a different view between you and me. I get the Jerry Rice example...painfully Boykin type slow and one of the best of all time. I can only imagine how much more dominant he would've been running like Randy Moss.


Or how much more dominant with a higher vertical. Or a quicker release. Or more strength. Or more ability to break tackles. Or even more sure hands. Or more agility. Or a better understanding of the game. Etc. Etc. Etc.
uffda udfa  
#42 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 7:36:48 PM(UTC)
I've always been bemused when people use the line by line response technique. I guess when it's done being used they feel like they've really showed the other person.

What evidence do I need to present? You said I've offered none. The point that you and others haven't acknowledged when it comes to speed is that is a HUGE differentiator among scouts and GM's when they set out to draft talent. How many times have you heard... "he would've gone higher if he ran a better 40?" How many? You seem to take issue with what NFL talent evaluators value very highly. I happen to be on the side of the guys who do this for a living that it is a vital component when looking at a prospect. Chris Borland was bantied about over and over regarding his limited athletic traits... "If not for his.... this kid's a 1st rounder"... he was slow, and also short. Yes, the balance of what he brought to the table still netted a decent draft status but, again, with better speed he's going much higher.

If you're studying WR's and you think you might need one MOST franchises are going to be looking for ones with excellent speed. Again, a guy like Robinson from Penn State... "he would've been a 1st rounder if he ran better"...excellent skills...not fast=not a 1st rounder. We select a guy who nets 4.56 when the guys I really liked timed much faster, as, again, we have a stable of middling speed guys. You have turned my disappointment with the turtles we drafted into the idea that I worship 40 times. If we drafted a couple of 260lbers to play DE/NT I would've lamented we didn't get guys with the size needed to be effective. Would I then be worshiping size? No, I would be expressing my disappointment that I felt we took undersized guys when there were more attractive guys available with size.

StarrMax1  
#43 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 8:42:41 PM(UTC)


I'm lost,

I was looking for opinions on Chris Harper.

?????????????????????????????????

He will surprise everyone if he gets that hammy healed by training camp and will be The packers #4 receiver at the beginning of the season.

uffda udfa  
#44 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 9:28:16 PM(UTC)
StarrMax1 said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm lost,

I was looking for opinions on Chris Harper.

?????????????????????????????????



Slow. [laughing]

EDIT: In fairness, he ran 4.38 at his pro day...and was also the guy who did the most reps on the bench for WR's with 20. So, he's plenty strong which is what he's said is his calling card. Plus, he's a converted QB...that reminds me of one of my old pre-season favs, Carlyle Holiday... or even Anquan Boldin.
StarrMax1  
#45 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 9:52:38 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Slow. [laughing]

EDIT: In fairness, he ran 4.38 at his pro day...and was also the guy who did the most reps on the bench for WR's with 20. So, he's plenty strong which is what he's said is his calling card. Plus, he's a converted QB...that reminds me of one of my old pre-season favs, Carlyle Holiday... or even Anquan Boldin.


I really don't care what these guys ran the 40 in in their underwear.

After the draft that is one of the most useless stats there is.

Quickness, agility, hand-eye coordination, hand strength, are just a few factors that are much more important than any 40yd time.

I'll take a guy who can run a perfect route every time over pure speed any day.



play2win  
#46 Posted : Friday, June 20, 2014 10:02:12 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
I've always been bemused when people use the line by line response technique. I guess when it's done being used they feel like they've really showed the other person.

What evidence do I need to present? You said I've offered none. The point that you and others haven't acknowledged when it comes to speed is that is a HUGE differentiator among scouts and GM's when they set out to draft talent. How many times have you heard... "he would've gone higher if he ran a better 40?" How many? You seem to take issue with what NFL talent evaluators value very highly. I happen to be on the side of the guys who do this for a living that it is a vital component when looking at a prospect. Chris Borland was bantied about over and over regarding his limited athletic traits... "If not for his.... this kid's a 1st rounder"... he was slow, and also short. Yes, the balance of what he brought to the table still netted a decent draft status but, again, with better speed he's going much higher.

If you're studying WR's and you think you might need one MOST franchises are going to be looking for ones with excellent speed. Again, a guy like Robinson from Penn State... "he would've been a 1st rounder if he ran better"...excellent skills...not fast=not a 1st rounder. We select a guy who nets 4.56 when the guys I really liked timed much faster, as, again, we have a stable of middling speed guys. You have turned my disappointment with the turtles we drafted into the idea that I worship 40 times. If we drafted a couple of 260lbers to play DE/NT I would've lamented we didn't get guys with the size needed to be effective. Would I then be worshiping size? No, I would be expressing my disappointment that I felt we took undersized guys when there were more attractive guys available with size.



For F sake! Quit your bitching. You've said all of this enough already.
mi_keys  
#47 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 11:49:47 AM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
What evidence do I need to present? You said I've offered none.


You don't NEED to do anything. You can post pictures of kittens blowing bubbles for all I care.

uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
The point that you and others haven't acknowledged when it comes to speed is that is a HUGE differentiator among scouts and GM's when they set out to draft talent... You seem to take issue with what NFL talent evaluators value very highly... I happen to be on the side of the guys who do this for a living that it is a vital component when looking at a prospect.


But then don't claim that everyone else is wrong and make some vain appeal to authority when the evidence doesn't back your assertions; and then act incredulous when people challenge your opinion.

BTW, Borland had several red flags including injury history. One team removed him from their board due to concern he'd have to have surgery again on his left shoulder where a screw from a past surgery has moved. He was still a 3rd rounder.
nerdmann  
#48 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:07:02 PM(UTC)
I bet Janis beats out Harper. lol
play2win  
#49 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 12:18:31 PM(UTC)
nerdmann said: Go to Quoted Post
I bet Janis beats out Harper. lol


That's the thing. Our WR unit is insanely deep right now. Harper could beat out Boykin, Adams could beat out Boykin. Janis could easily make the final 53. His size and speed are too good, and he showed some solid hands in securing passes. Who knows where this will go? Boykin will be in a real fight to stay the #3 WR.

I think Dorsey, White and Gillett have the biggest uphill battles. Chris Harper is definitely in the mix, and I think Abby and Janis are too.

Plus, Janis has a great 40 time.
uffda udfa  
#50 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 1:09:23 PM(UTC)
mi_keys said: Go to Quoted Post
You don't NEED to do anything. You can post pictures of kittens blowing bubbles for all I care.



But then don't claim that everyone else is wrong and make some vain appeal to authority when the evidence doesn't back your assertions; and then act incredulous when people challenge your opinion.

BTW, Borland had several red flags including injury history. One team removed him from their board due to concern he'd have to have surgery again on his left shoulder where a screw from a past surgery has moved. He was still a 3rd rounder.


Almost everyone is wrong. 40 time is highly valued when it comes to the drafting of prospects. To skewer me for valuing them, also, is ironic.

The evidence doesn't back my assertions? No, there is no evidence that backs yours. It probably matters, though, exactly what issue we're debating. I'm pointing to the idea that the NFL community values 40 times very highly. Your rail against me, is perceived, by me, as a rail against the NFL community which I'm not a part of.

You can try to obfuscate the issues with Borland but you know his 40 time was a monumental negative against him. Let me interject Michael Sam into this discussion. This has been painted as an issue as something other than what it actually is. Go look at Michael Sam's 3 cone time and then see where it fits among other prospects. I don't need a lecture from you, and others, how 3 cone isn't really important. Just look at his number and do a little research and you'll have a giant hint as to why he went undrafted.

Will be interesting to see what the Packers value more... A big strong WR like Harper, or a speedy measurables guy like Janis. Unless Abbrederis goes Ricky Elmore, he's a lock to make the 53 to me.

Maybe, they'll value neither and both won't make it.


EDIT: Here's a GREAT piece on the 40's history:

Quote:
40 time history and evolution (mercurynews.com)With millions of dollars riding on a prospect's draft position and with draft position partly dependent on the 40, combine training centers have sprouted up across the country. Two of the best-known are the IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida, and Athletes' Performance Institute in Phoenix.

"I look at it this way: Film and statistics are like a player's grade-point average, and the combine results are like the SATs," said Spitz, who attended Monte Vista High and was a hammer thrower at USC.

"And at the combine, the 40 is everything."
play2win  
#51 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 1:51:38 PM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
Almost everyone is wrong. 40 time is highly valued when it comes to the drafting of prospects. To skewer me for valuing them, also, is ironic.

The evidence doesn't back my assertions? No, there is no evidence that backs yours. It probably matters, though, exactly what issue we're debating. I'm pointing to the idea that the NFL community values 40 times very highly. Your rail against me, is perceived, by me, as a rail against the NFL community which I'm not a part of.

You can try to obfuscate the issues with Borland but you know his 40 time was a monumental negative against him. Let me interject Michael Sam into this discussion. This has been painted as an issue as something other than what it actually is. Go look at Michael Sam's 3 cone time and then see where it fits among other prospects. I don't need a lecture from you, and others, how 3 cone isn't really important. Just look at his number and do a little research and you'll have a giant hint as to why he went undrafted.

Will be interesting to see what the Packers value more... A big strong WR like Harper, or a speedy measurables guy like Janis. Unless Abbrederis goes Ricky Elmore, he's a lock to make the 53 to me.

Maybe, they'll value neither and both won't make it.


No one here is saying 40 times are not highly valued in drafting players. I think everyone here is pretty much in line with a player's 40 time not being a sole consideration in choosing to draft them, but we understand there is a value attached to them, and speed is significantly important. Other factors come into play too, and some clearly carry greater weight in their decision making. Who was doing the measuring? How was the time recorded? Some teams have a personal preference to measure their own, for many reasons.

You simply buy into whatever a Combine or Pro Day result may be because that is pretty much all you have to go on as a fan. Sure, those give an indication of what we might expect from a player regarding how fast he is, but it is not a comprehensive factor in how he will perform as a football player. Teams have other means at their disposals for determining a player's game speed, and they pay good money for those. Private workouts, scouting visits, etc. They also are not locked into a 40 time as a complete representation of a player's on field abilities.

I think all of us recognize the great speed Sam Shields plays with, and how that can set him apart from many of the opposing players he covers. Hell, I love that speed. I love fast players too, but not just fast. I want the most complete football players we can land on a Packers roster. But, the 40 time is not all there is to love about Shields' ability to play the game. Same is true for all of the other players you have been whining about for the last month since the draft. Really, it is tiresome. Enough already with 40 times. We get it. We all want fast players. Some of us are willing to recognize a 40 time is not going to determine exactly how well a player will perform on the field.

The 40 isn't everything.
Dexter_Sinister  
#52 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 2:41:06 PM(UTC)
3 cone and short shuttle give some indication of quickness. Hayward for example was very good with those measurable.

The vertical and bench reps are a good indication of power.

40 gives you an indication of top end speed, but most routes are less than 40 yards in a straight line.

Abbredaris is a good example of quick vs fast. He runs some pretty sick routes.

But no coach in his right mind will take a tape measure over video tape.

For example, Taylor Mays had some incredible measurable. Height, weight, speeed... he sucked as a player though.
uffda udfa  
#53 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 4:00:21 PM(UTC)
I hope you read that article...it was excellent. It focused on Shane Skov...a guy with great tape but ran a terrible 40 (injured) and did not get drafted. I believe some here were pining for him during the draft.

This is a critical component of the 40 time... as noted by the article... the draft cards have NAME... HEIGHT....WEIGHT...and 40 TIME...nothing else. 40 time appears to be pretty important. Anyway, here's what Niners GM Trent Baalke had to say about how the Niners use the 40 from that linked article:

"We rate their play speed, then go to a pro day or the combine and get the real time," Baalke said. "You hope they match. What's hard is when you like a player and think he plays fast, and then he runs slow. Then you have a real tough dilemma to sort through."

If I'm to talke Baalke at face value it appears that tape gets trumped by 40 time in shorts when it shows slower than what they thought. A guy the Niners may have been high on due what they felt his play speed was all of a sudden isn't quite such a hot prospect when the guy goes out and runs a slow 40 time. Hopefully, our guys who clocked unimpressive 40's are much faster than the stopwatch says. As Ted Thompson said of Adams and his 4.56...that's not our time. I'm guessing Ted Thompson timed him much better only reinforcing the idea that 40 time is pretty imperative.

Chris Harper ran 4.38 at his pro day. Will be fun to watch him in pre-season and see if he looks more like 4.38 or more toward his below average speed. Same with Janis... will he be as fast? I know someone out there who thinks we can't learn anything by seeing guys on TV, bu I have a feeling we'll be able to figure this one out with our idiot box.
uffda udfa  
#54 Posted : Saturday, June 21, 2014 4:00:43 PM(UTC)
Duplicate post.
Dulak  
#55 Posted : Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:50:22 AM(UTC)
I never though the packers really hired fast 40 time receivers.

IMO we looked for the total package.

Im quite interested in how our WRs do this year. I see only nelson and cobb as a lock - rest are up in the air; ok maybe our 2nd round pick. Wish we kept jones thou. Who knows maybe I wont care after seeing these new guys play.

play2win  
#56 Posted : Sunday, June 22, 2014 5:16:24 AM(UTC)
Dulak said: Go to Quoted Post
I never though the packers really hired fast 40 time receivers.

IMO we looked for the total package.

Im quite interested in how our WRs do this year. I see only nelson and cobb as a lock - rest are up in the air; ok maybe our 2nd round pick. Wish we kept jones thou. Who knows maybe I wont care after seeing these new guys play.



Dulak, you really won't care at all. The amount of talent they have added to the position is insanely good. ! I liked Jones too, but they look like they have made some significant upgrades.
StarrMax1  
#57 Posted : Sunday, June 22, 2014 5:55:23 AM(UTC)
uffda udfa said: Go to Quoted Post
I hope you read that article...it was excellent. It focused on Shane Skov...a guy with great tape but ran a terrible 40 (injured) and did not get drafted. I believe some here were pining for him during the draft.

This is a critical component of the 40 time... as noted by the article... the draft cards have NAME... HEIGHT....WEIGHT...and 40 TIME...nothing else. 40 time appears to be pretty important. Anyway, here's what Niners GM Trent Baalke had to say about how the Niners use the 40 from that linked article:

"We rate their play speed, then go to a pro day or the combine and get the real time," Baalke said. "You hope they match. What's hard is when you like a player and think he plays fast, and then he runs slow. Then you have a real tough dilemma to sort through."

If I'm to talke Baalke at face value it appears that tape gets trumped by 40 time in shorts when it shows slower than what they thought. A guy the Niners may have been high on due what they felt his play speed was all of a sudden isn't quite such a hot prospect when the guy goes out and runs a slow 40 time. Hopefully, our guys who clocked unimpressive 40's are much faster than the stopwatch says. As Ted Thompson said of Adams and his 4.56...that's not our time. I'm guessing Ted Thompson timed him much better only reinforcing the idea that 40 time is pretty imperative.

Chris Harper ran 4.38 at his pro day. Will be fun to watch him in pre-season and see if he looks more like 4.38 or more toward his below average speed. Same with Janis... will he be as fast? I know someone out there who thinks we can't learn anything by seeing guys on TV, bu I have a feeling we'll be able to figure this one out with our idiot box.


You do realize you are arguing with yourself.

Nobody is saying a players 40 time isn't important, DURING THE DRAFT PERIOD.

You just stated "it will be interesting to see if Harper looks more like 4.38 or more toward his below average speed."

Maybe you don't even realize you switched from talking about a straight 40 time and started talking about "football speed".

There is a HUGE difference.

Every player I have ever seen interviewed says pretty much the same thing, they go to the combines and do all these drills to either improve their draft status or in some cases just to get noticed(I:E: Janis).

To a player they all say now that they either were drafted or invited to a camp, it doesn't matter how they got there, they are just glad they can finally put on the pads and show their perspective teams that they can play the game at a Profesional level.

Can someone tell me,(because I have never been able to attend an OTA or TC practice), how long do coaches spend on timing players in the 40 yd dash at these practices?
play2win  
#58 Posted : Sunday, June 22, 2014 6:51:09 AM(UTC)
StarrMax1 said: Go to Quoted Post

Can someone tell me,(because I have never been able to attend an OTA or TC practice), how long do coaches spend on timing players in the 40 yd dash at these practices?


Zero. [laughing] Not a second...
User is suspended until 4/29/2043 11:56:55 PM(UTC) texaspackerbacker  
#59 Posted : Sunday, June 22, 2014 8:13:10 AM(UTC)
Harper was one of the reasons (along with Boykin and the 2 or 3 or more others we already had) that I really didn't think Ted would draft a WR, much less two (make that three). I'm happy with Adams, and very pleased we got Abbrederis, but it still creates a problem or at least a question mark.

If you assume the top five are fairly sure, then as was said, it's Jaris v Harper as well as the others. Odds are, though, somebody will get some kind of injury that either is or can be stretched worthy of IR or PUP.

With so many "skilled players" (I don't like that term), the question becomes how many TEs, WRs, and RBs can we keep without messing with depth other places?.

My early and very shaky prediction is Harper does not make the team and Jaris goes to the PS - for a while, at least. That leaves 5 WRs, 3 RBs, and maybe as many as 5 TEs.
DakotaT  
#60 Posted : Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:48:37 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker said: Go to Quoted Post


My early and very shaky prediction is Harper does not make the team and Jaris goes to the PS - for a while, at least. That leaves 5 WRs, 3 RBs, and maybe as many as 5 TEs.


I don't know why we need 5 mediocre tight ends, when we should bring in a hammerhead fullback not named John Kuhn just to block for the three headed monster named Lacy/Starks/Harris.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
6 Pages<12345>»
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
Smokey (42m) : Easier said than fixed .
Nonstopdrivel (1h) : The web version lists who started the thread; the mobile version lists who last updated it.
Nonstopdrivel (1h) : Also, there's a weird disparity between the web version and online version of this site.
Nonstopdrivel (1h) : ;-)
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : Packers wanted D. Ware in 2005. Thank you Cowboys!
Zero2Cool (21-Mar) : lol Rourke
Nonstopdrivel (21-Mar) : I HATE HATE HATE the way all threads get marked as read after viewing a few of them in one session. It's obnoxious.
Smokey (21-Mar) : Check out this site, NFLdraftscout.com , a great resource site.
Smokey (20-Mar) : Jared Cook signs with Raiders .
Smokey (20-Mar) : I did watch SB 45 on YouTube the other night, very eye opening .
Smokey (20-Mar) : Watching Spring Training Baseball, Nationals vs Yankees, very interesting .
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : B1G making some noise in that bracket
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : The more join, the more talk, the better. including John
Zero2Cool (19-Mar) : no forum should need one person, we have others, speak up!
gbguy20 (19-Mar) : slow forum needs more uffda
Smokey (19-Mar) : There's always next year .
Smokey (18-Mar) : Virginia is still in it !
Smokey (18-Mar) : On Wisconsin
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Down goes Villanova!! Badgers!!!
Zero2Cool (18-Mar) : Might have went into your SPAM or JUNK folder??
yooperfan (18-Mar) : Funny I never got the invite
wpr (17-Mar) : Ignoring the Signing Bonus, Jones' base is only $725K above the vet min
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Not many seem interested, but I did invite those from last year.
dhazer (16-Mar) : no bracket challenge Kevin?
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Blame twitter on the /home page here lol
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Datone Jones Vikings deal $3.75M, $1.6M signing bonus, $1.5M salary, $31,250 per game active, $150K workout bonus, $1.25M sacks-pt incentive
Zero2Cool (16-Mar) : Nope. I don't care to read up on Vikings players. :-)
Bnoble (15-Mar) : Anyone see any numbers on Jones deal?
uffda udfa (14-Mar) : Datone to Minnesota.
musccy (14-Mar) : A more $ than I'd prefer, but still glad Elliott is back
uffda udfa (14-Mar) : Jayrone back on a one year 1.6 deal.
Zero2Cool (13-Mar) : Martellus Bennett Contract Details: New Packers TE has just $3.85M cap hit in 2017
Zero2Cool (13-Mar) : Packers have $28 under cap yet
hardrocker950 (13-Mar) : Walden would be a nice pickup...
Zero2Cool (13-Mar) : Erik Walden is a free agent ... hmm
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
27m / Announcements / Nonstopdrivel

35m / Fantasy Sports Talk / Nonstopdrivel

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

8h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

20-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / yooperfan

17-Mar / Around The NFL / Smokey

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / gbguy20

17-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Cheesey

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / DoddPower

15-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Grabacr

Headlines