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.
2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Zero2Cool  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, February 22, 2011 3:23:54 PM(UTC)
http://sportsillustrated...index.html#ixzz1EhJqSGwN


" said: Go to Quoted Post
Ran into Lions PR man Bill Keenist leaving Dallas Monday, and he made this point: If not for the late-game ridiculousness in games of Dec. 19 in New Jersey and Tampa, the Packers would not be hoisting the Lombardi Trophy today.

Keenist is right. Green Bay finished 10-6, the last Wild Card team and sixth seed in the NFC, by virtue of winning tiebreakers with the 10-6 Giants and 10-6 Bucs. We all know the Giants story: Up 31-10 over Philly at home with eight minutes left in the game, the Giants gave up 28 points in the last half of the fourth quarter and lost 38-31. The killer was punter Matt Dodge blowing the game and keeping a punt to DeSean Jackson inbounds with 14 seconds left in a 31-all game. Jackson returned it 65 yards for a touchdown. Who knows what would have happened if that game went to overtime, but that'll stay a mystery.

The Detroit game, in many ways, was more painful because of who the Lions are. They hadn't won a road game in three years. They were in Tampa, trailing by a field goal with two minutes left, playing third-string quarterback Drew Stanton. He led a field-goal drive to tie it. The Lions won the toss in overtime. Stanton led another long drive to win it in overtime.

Dave Rayner kicked the tying and winning field goals that afternoon in Tampa Bay. He was Green Bay's kicker in 2006, the one fired to make way for new Super Bowl champion Mason Crosby.

Without the ex-Packer to help the current Packers, Green Bay's players would be in the fifth week of their offseason today, not getting confetti and love and cheers showed on them in Lambeau Field. Football is a funny game sometimes.
Dulak  
#2 Posted : Thursday, February 24, 2011 11:58:53 AM(UTC)
ya its freaking unbelievable ... alls I know is that before the giants game the bookies gave great odds for a GB SB win ... ya I didnt take em (missed it last year so errr) ... but after the week 17 win and the WC win over the eagles I jumped on some digits ...
djcubez  
#3 Posted : Thursday, February 24, 2011 6:49:07 PM(UTC)
If Mason Crosby doesn't miss that kick against the Redskins we win that game.

If Rodgers doesn't get concussed in the Lions game we (probably) would win that game.

If Rodgers plays in the Patriots game we'd have a better chance at winning that game.

If Rodgers doesn't fumble the ball in the end zone against the Falcons we probably win that game.

If we don't let a lineman romp 71 yards against us in the Patriots game we have a better chance at winning that game.

If Devin Hester doesn't run back that punt for a touchdown we probably win that game.

See? I can play that game too.
Zero2Cool  
#4 Posted : Thursday, February 24, 2011 9:31:18 PM(UTC)
I think this article is wrong. if giants win then eagles don't get in.
Yerko  
#5 Posted : Thursday, February 24, 2011 9:43:37 PM(UTC)
...and Bill Kennist....

Thats the way the cookie crumbles.
djcubez  
#6 Posted : Thursday, February 24, 2011 10:13:39 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I think this article is wrong. if giants win then eagles don't get in.


We owned head-to-head's against both the Eagles and Giants. However, the Eagles did lose two games after beating the Giants so there could have been a chance of both of them making it.

I just think it's a bit stupid to argue hypotheticals in hindsight.
Zero2Cool  
#7 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 4:08:35 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I think this article is wrong. if giants win then eagles don't get in.


We owned head-to-head's against both the Eagles and Giants. However, the Eagles did lose two games after beating the Giants so there could have been a chance of both of them making it.

I just think it's a bit stupid to argue hypotheticals in hindsight.


It is stupid, but I still think the article is wrong, lol.

" said: Go to Quoted Post
1. Apply division tie breaker to eliminate all but the highest ranked club in each division prior to proceeding to step 2. The original seeding within a division upon application of the division tie breaker remains the same for all subsequent applications of the procedure that are necessary to identify the two Wild-Card participants.


I think that means if both Giants and Eagles made it, only one of them would have gotten in?


If Tampa Bay beat the Lions, then the game against the @Saints would have meant a lot to the Saints because they'd have to win to get in. I don't remember if they kept starters in or not, but I believe they had their spot locked in the playoffs.



Hell if I know ... the only team I'm thanking is the Green Bay Packers and I think this is just a way for Peter King to slight the Packers accomplishment. Yes, I'm being petty about it. I don't get any other angle other than he was told to pump out a story an he lacks creativity, which I know he doesn't.
Greg C.  
#8 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 10:50:46 AM(UTC)
King's a good writer for the most part, but he often lapses into this kind of garbage. I view it less as slighting the Packers' accomplishment than as a statement about how various teams' fates are intertwined in the NFL. Pretty mundane stuff, really. I was only mildly irritated by it.
Pack93z  
#9 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 11:54:33 AM(UTC)
Personally... it proves just how close the margin is in this league to winning it all and sitting an watching another team win it.

That isn't anything new.. just a very solid illustration of that point, IMO.
Dulak  
#10 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 1:04:08 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Personally... it proves just how close the margin is in this league to winning it all and sitting an watching another team win it.

That isn't anything new.. just a very solid illustration of that point, IMO.


that about sums it up - we were that close to having our offseason chatter 1 month earlier. IMO we all knew we were a much better team then most of the other NFL teams.

Simple as this - we had our opportunity and our players/coaches did not let us down. They rose to the challenge and IMO like I talked about all during the preseason. Its the heart of this team - its that that won us the championship.
wpr  
#11 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 2:41:31 PM(UTC)
Yeah this is just more BS. I posted most of the things cubez said awhile back after someone said GB backed into the playoffs.

I added the Miami game. If the official would have gotten the call right and not thrown the flag on Johnson for being lined up over center when he was clearly more than a yard back they would not have lost that game either.

I really don't mind it when the games that went in favor of GB are pointed out as long as they point out the ones what went against GB too.
TheKanataThrilla  
#12 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 3:11:03 PM(UTC)
The problem with this article is it lacks all the gifts which were given to Chicago to win the division starting with the joke win against Detroit. I still don't know why somebody with possession of the ball over the goal line has to not lose control of it going down. It is dfferent rules for WRs than RBs in my opinion.

Nobody had a horseshoe like the Bears this year.
Zero2Cool  
#13 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 3:41:05 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Personally... it proves just how close the margin is in this league to winning it all and sitting an watching another team win it.

That isn't anything new.. just a very solid illustration of that point, IMO.


How is it solid? It's not even accurate. You can't change one outcome without having a domino effect. Surely you remember playing and how winning and losing effected you, your team and how your coaches coached.

The article is 'un' solid and comes off whimsical in my view. ;)

A thorough article would have outlined the what if's for the Packers as well. This just points out that basically the Packers were 'lucky'. I strongly disagree, the game is of inches, everyone knows this and the Packers have lost by inches and won by inches.

He's only looking at one side of the coin, and only glancing at it.
Dulak  
#14 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 3:46:54 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The problem with this article is it lacks all the gifts which were given to Chicago to win the division starting with the joke win against Detroit. I still don't know why somebody with possession of the ball over the goal line has to not lose control of it going down. It is dfferent rules for WRs than RBs in my opinion.

Nobody had a horseshoe like the Bears this year.


That always stumps me too ... so a guy can run in like rodgers or a rb and alls he has to do is be 1 cm over the line and its a TD; but a dude catching the ball has to hold onto it even when he is drilled and he cant let go of it even if he is hit by a mack truck.
Zero2Cool  
#15 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 4:07:53 PM(UTC)
Exactly, the Bears had how many injuries, home field advantage (-Falcons) and how'd that work for them? Not to mention the Lions game as just mentioned above.
wpr  
#16 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 4:15:28 PM(UTC)
King has a deadline and needed a story. Any story. He didn't care how accurate he was. Wasn't he a Favre-ite anyway? Like Madden, he probably is sore that GB won without ol #4.
Pack93z  
#17 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 4:52:58 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Personally... it proves just how close the margin is in this league to winning it all and sitting an watching another team win it.

That isn't anything new.. just a very solid illustration of that point, IMO.


How is it solid? It's not even accurate. You can't change one outcome without having a domino effect. Surely you remember playing and how winning and losing effected you, your team and how your coaches coached.

The article is 'un' solid and comes off whimsical in my view. ;)

A thorough article would have outlined the what if's for the Packers as well. This just points out that basically the Packers were 'lucky'. I strongly disagree, the game is of inches, everyone knows this and the Packers have lost by inches and won by inches.

He's only looking at one side of the coin, and only glancing at it.


How does it not illustrate that the margin between qualifying for the playoffs and not is oh so small?

A play here or a play there.. of course there is the totality of effects from that point out.. but I stand by my comment, the margin between winning and losing in this league is tiny.. and the Packers getting in based on a number of factors over two other teams with the same record and a accumulation of events that separates them.

And of course it doesn't outline all other factors.. King was trying to point out, IMO, that tiny margin between sitting home and getting into the playoffs and earning it from there.
Greg C.  
#18 Posted : Friday, February 25, 2011 6:06:53 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The article is 'un' solid and comes off whimsical in my view.


"Whimsical" is a good word for it, and that's why it doesn't bother me much. It's not a stand-alone article anyway; it's just a little prelude to his weekly mailbag column. I haven't yet heard anybody discrediting the Packers for their championship, and that's not what this is.

By the way, Peter King predicted the Packers to go to the Super Bowl, and he was highly skeptical of year two of the Vikings' Favre experiment, so I don't see any evidence to support wpr's theory that King didn't want the Packers to win it without Favre.
Dulak  
#19 Posted : Tuesday, March 1, 2011 10:44:01 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
The article is 'un' solid and comes off whimsical in my view.


"Whimsical" is a good word for it, and that's why it doesn't bother me much. It's not a stand-alone article anyway; it's just a little prelude to his weekly mailbag column. I haven't yet heard anybody discrediting the Packers for their championship, and that's not what this is.

By the way, Peter King predicted the Packers to go to the Super Bowl, and he was highly skeptical of year two of the Vikings' Favre experiment, so I don't see any evidence to support wpr's theory that King didn't want the Packers to win it without Favre.


I dont give too much credence to kings article - many many people picked the pack winning it all or going to the big game preseason. I didnt hear too much talk after we started suffering injuries thou.
pacmaniac  
#20 Posted : Thursday, March 10, 2011 10:29:11 AM(UTC)
The Pack also should thank the refs in the first Vikings game - they blew a couple TD calls that should have been in favor of the Vikings (and I'm not talking about the late Harvin TD that was correctly reversed).
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>
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
now / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

10m / Green Bay Packers Talk / uffda udfa

25m / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

19h / Community Welcome! / wpr

23h / 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