Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
4 Pages<1234>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
macbob  
#41 Posted : Monday, March 14, 2011 10:33:07 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Rushing success doesn't equal rushing either.

Of course he was talking about success at an elite level. Which has proven to be a non factor. Specially if you look at recent trends.

Yes it was important 20 years ago. It isn't 20 years ago now though.

Were there any other changes in the Bronco's after they got Davis? If he was the only factor that changed including luck, who opponents are and they didn't change one bit, then people can say he was the reason they went from a super bowl team to a super bowl winning team. Otherwise it could easily be dismissed as coincidence. Statistically speaking.


Dexter--Zombie IS saying all running is irrelevant (even though he subsequently said he wasn't)

OR

Zombie is saying running IS relevant, but it's SUCCESSFUL running (e.g., running success) that is irrelevant.

Despite other comments in this thread, Zombie's not a COMPLETE moron :icon_smile: (smiley face = just kidding), so it can't be #2.

So, contrary to later disclaimers, I'm back to #1.
vikesrule  
#42 Posted : Monday, March 14, 2011 10:42:59 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
...I think people enjoy fvcking with you just as much as me..



While screwing with Z2C has provided much pleasure and entertainment over the past 5 years or so,
when you showed up, it brought messin' with a cheesehead to a whole new level.

I mean, that in your case, there is such an unending amount of material to work with.
A dufus of your caliber is pretty much a once in a generation type thing.
Zero2Cool  
#43 Posted : Monday, March 14, 2011 10:45:45 PM(UTC)
Waiting to hear back to see if I'm approved for a car loan and went through some posts.

I think what's being said is that it's better to have an elite QB, rather than elite RB. Which is no secret. No one's ever said you NEED to have an elite RB to win a Super Bowl, at least, not in what I've read. A running game is needed, yes. As I've said countless times, I feel 10 carries for 30 yards is more efficient for the offense than 5 carries for 30 yards. My reasoning is that the more times you run, the more times the defense has to honor the run and it opens up play action passes.

Back to Barry Sanders @ 10mil vs Nance @450k. This is impossible to prove and anyone wanting facts to prove one way or the other is absurdly crazy go nuts. And since I fall into that category, I'll try to lay out why I think its difficult.

Barry + average QB = passing game a lot better.
Nance + elite QB = doesn't improve passing game, might hurt because there's no chance for Nance.
Barry + elite QB = pure offensive domination.

We also have to take into consideration the OL and WR... I mean there's just TOO many variables to even consider having an argument like this.

You give me an Matt Flynn, Barry Sanders, Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson and I'll give you a feared offense.

A Barry Sanders or even LaDanian Tomlinson simply just helps your team. Assuming said players are in their hayday.

If anyone wants to hold it against Barry because the Lions didn't win a Super Bowl with him is ridiculous. This goes along with zombieslayers point, it's easier to STOP the run than it is to stop the pass. That's just logic. Load up the box, maintain gap discipline and you should stop the run.

IF a team CAN get good yards running the ball and passing the ball its makes BOTH phases that much better.


If one were to say it's better to have elite QB + Ryan Grant @1 million over Elite QB + Barry Sanders @ 10 million ... I'd agree with that because Ryan might run into his own guys, but at times he can break one deep.
macbob  
#44 Posted : Monday, March 14, 2011 11:31:55 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I think what's being said is that it's better to have an elite QB, rather than elite RB. Which is no secret. No one's ever said you NEED to have an elite RB to win a Super Bowl, at least, not in what I've read.


Zero, I'd like to agree with you that is what Zombie is saying. I originally thought that Zombie was just stating his argument poorly, but I don't think so anymore.

Through multiple threads this fall Zombie has had plenty of opportunity to clear it up, but he hasn't--he consistently phrases it as "running is irrelevant" or some variation.

If he truly meant that the passing game is more important than the running game, then he could have said that. And he'd have encountered very little disagreement.

I've made it clear through my posts that I think the Packers should be primarily a passing team, and running enough to attract the D's attention (and distracts them from the passing game, improving your passing). When Zombie said above he disagrees with me, what he is saying is he disagrees with that philosophy.

So, I am led to believe that Zombie truly believes all you need to do is pass, pass, pass. If running is irrelevant, why would you ever run??? If it's not irrelevant, why would you keep saying it is?

Zero2Cool said:
A running game is needed, yes. As I've said countless times, I feel 10 carries for 30 yards is more efficient for the offense than 5 carries for 30 yards. My reasoning is that the more times you run, the more times the defense has to honor the run and it opens up play action passes.


Agreed on the running 10 times attracts the D's attention more than 5, but running 10 times for 60 attracts the D's attention more than running 10 times for 30. The more effective your running game the more you'll attract the D's attention and open up your passing game.
zombieslayer  
#45 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 4:43:35 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post

And I'm perfectly fine with that, especially when it comes to Barry Sanders. I was just tying to tow the joking line, but guess I went to far.


Dude - I don't mind you joking with me. What I do mind is that you don't have any facts. Macbob slights me all the time but he's backing up what he's saying. Personally, I think Macbob's a utopian. The game has changed.

" said: Go to Quoted Post
Barry + average QB = passing game a lot better.
Nance + elite QB = doesn't improve passing game, might hurt because there's no chance for Nance.
Barry + elite QB = pure offensive domination.


OK, thank you. Now you're finally giving me something to argue with. This is what I want.

An elite RB like Barry Sanders will take passes away from the offense. He'll also take money away from the team. So thus, I'll take Nance + elite QB. All Nance really has to do is rush 15 times for 60 yards. That's it. The pass will give him those opportunities as the pass nowadays opens up the run, not the other way around. Yes, I saw Pack93z posted examples of the latter but those are exceptions, not the rule.

Macbob - Maybe I'm not stating my point very well. Rushing success is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you're the #1 rushing team or the #20. Your chances of winning the SB are exactly the same. Yes, you still need to hand the ball off. But you don't need to be good. Is that more clear?

Also, I went as far as saying an elite RB actually hurts the team by taking too many passes away from the offense. Also, he ends up asking for too much money where you're better off spending that money on a LB, DL, or DB.
Zero2Cool  
#46 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:29:31 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
And I'm perfectly fine with that, especially when it comes to Barry Sanders. I was just tying to tow the joking line, but guess I went to far.


Dude - I don't mind you joking with me. What I do mind is that you don't have any facts. Macbob slights me all the time but he's backing up what he's saying. Personally, I think Macbob's a utopian. The game has changed.

" said: Go to Quoted Post
Barry + average QB = passing game a lot better.
Nance + elite QB = doesn't improve passing game, might hurt because there's no chance for Nance.
Barry + elite QB = pure offensive domination.


OK, thank you. Now you're finally giving me something to argue with. This is what I want.

An elite RB like Barry Sanders will take passes away from the offense. He'll also take money away from the team. So thus, I'll take Nance + elite QB. All Nance really has to do is rush 15 times for 60 yards. That's it. The pass will give him those opportunities as the pass nowadays opens up the run, not the other way around. Yes, I saw Pack93z posted examples of the latter but those are exceptions, not the rule.


Packers are paying Ryan Grant 5.5 million for 2011 and if he's on the roster on the 15th day, another million. You're telling me you can't afford to throw another million or two or three for a Barry Sanders?

If one were to say it's better to have
Elite QB + Ryan Grant @ 1 million
OVER
Elite QB + Barry Sanders @ 10 million ...
I'd agree with that because Ryan might run into his own guys, but at times he can break one deep.


I see you didn't mention that Barry Sanders doesn't need a fullback when discussing money being used for other players. FB's get paid big bucks ya know!

When you have a Barry Sanders on your team, he makes other aspects better. He makes your OL better, he makes your defense better because they are on the field less. He makes your WR and TE better because of the play action pass.

Therefore you do not need to pay those extra millions to acquire/keep high level talent.

You give me an Matt Flynn, Barry Sanders, Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson and I'll give you a feared offense.

I think you're using Barry as a way to spite me. I mean, seriously, what GM would ever take Nance @600k over Barry Sanders @10million?

I do think Elite passing game > Elite running game. I've said this many times too.

I believe I get your point and concept and its something I've said far earlier and agree with, obviously, but again Nance over Barry, sorry, that's a mistake.

Barry Sanders makes others on your team better.
Nance does nothing for you, is no threat to take it the distance, does not put fear in anyone. A RB has to have SOME fear instilled in the defense, even if he rushes 10 times for 30 yards, he has to have that 'uh oh he can go all the way' or at least 30+ yards. Nance does not an will not offer that ever in his career, from what I've seen.
Packers_Finland  
#47 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 5:40:01 PM(UTC)
I'm putting together QB, RB and Defense stats from the 2010 season which I'll put up when I'm finished. So far it's looking like the order of importance is DEF, QB, RB which is no surprise. But to say there's no correlation between running success and winning is hyperbole. The top 16 teams have clearly better RBs than the bottom 16.

In terms of running backs, the order is Teams 1-8 > Teams 17-24 > Teams 9-16 > Teams 25-32. (Ranked by reverse draft order and top RB fantasy points).

And even the fact that the 17-24 ranked teams have better RBs than the 9-16 ranked teams is very iffy, as the two most injury plagued running back situations in the league happen to be situated in the 9-16 range (Colts and Saints).
Cheesey  
#48 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:07:41 PM(UTC)
I think an elite QB can make up for a so-so running game. As we saw with the Packers this past season. A great QB can use short passes to get the gains a RB would get, and has the ability to go downfield for the big play.
If all you have is a great RB, a defense can key on that and stop your offense dead.
Barry Sanders.......he was awesome. But how many of you remember when the Packer D held him to i believe minus one yard for an entire game? The Lions did nothing that game, cause the Packers keyed on Sanders.
I can only imagine what Sanders could have done with a decent QB.
Packers_Finland  
#49 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 6:35:08 PM(UTC)
Too damn tired to analyze will do it later. Numbers used for study are QB Rating for QBs, Fantasy Points for RBs, and Points Allowed for Defenses. Teams are in the draft order, so for the purposes of calculating success, the top teams are the worst and the bottom teams are the best.
zombieslayer  
#50 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:28:58 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post


Packers are paying Ryan Grant 5.5 million for 2011 and if he's on the roster on the 15th day, another million. You're telling me you can't afford to throw another million or two or three for a Barry Sanders?

If one were to say it's better to have
Elite QB + Ryan Grant @ 1 million
OVER
Elite QB + Barry Sanders @ 10 million ...
I'd agree with that because Ryan might run into his own guys, but at times he can break one deep.


I see you didn't mention that Barry Sanders doesn't need a fullback when discussing money being used for other players. FB's get paid big bucks ya know!

When you have a Barry Sanders on your team, he makes other aspects better. He makes your OL better, he makes your defense better because they are on the field less. He makes your WR and TE better because of the play action pass.

Therefore you do not need to pay those extra millions to acquire/keep high level talent.

You give me an Matt Flynn, Barry Sanders, Greg Jennings and Jordy Nelson and I'll give you a feared offense.

I think you're using Barry as a way to spite me. I mean, seriously, what GM would ever take Nance @600k over Barry Sanders @10million?

I do think Elite passing game > Elite running game. I've said this many times too.

I believe I get your point and concept and its something I've said far earlier and agree with, obviously, but again Nance over Barry, sorry, that's a mistake.

Barry Sanders makes others on your team better.
Nance does nothing for you, is no threat to take it the distance, does not put fear in anyone. A RB has to have SOME fear instilled in the defense, even if he rushes 10 times for 30 yards, he has to have that 'uh oh he can go all the way' or at least 30+ yards. Nance does not an will not offer that ever in his career, from what I've seen.


For the record, I'm not using Barry Sanders to spite you. I'm using him because he's hands down the best RB I've ever seen. If you'd prefer, let's use Wallie instead, who I rank #2. Sorry Finny, Wallie's better than your beloved LT.

I'd take an offense of Aaron Rodgers, Nance, Gregorious, Finley, Jordy, JJ, and Driver over an offense of Aaron, Wallie, Gregorious, Finley, Jordy, JJ, & Driver + $10 million.

Why?

2 reasons:
1) $10 million can go to the D,
2) Wallie would take up too much of the O.

As I do believe you have to run, you don't want to run "too much." Too many teams with elite RBs run too much. If you look at a lot of the past recent SB winners, they didn't have elite RBs and passed to open up the run.

I actually think we are in agreement about several things but you're taking offense at the mention of Barry so I'll replace Barry with Wallie.

I do think that with Aaron scaring Ds, Nance could easily get 30 yards on 10 carries. He did get 32 yards on 9 carries against the Giants and we blew them away.
zombieslayer  
#51 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:10:15 PM(UTC)
And Finny, your graph kind of proves my point. Elite D is #1. Elite QB is 2nd. Elite RB? Of the top 5, only one made the Playoffs. SB winner had the 29th RB.
DakotaT  
#52 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 10:17:52 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
...I think people enjoy fvcking with you just as much as me..



While screwing with Z2C has provided much pleasure and entertainment over the past 5 years or so,
when you showed up, it brought messin' with a cheesehead to a whole new level.

I mean, that in your case, there is such an unending amount of material to work with.
A dufus of your caliber is pretty much a once in a generation type thing.


to you slapnuts.
Zero2Cool  
#53 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:06:25 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
And Finny, your graph kind of proves my point. Elite D is #1. Elite QB is 2nd. Elite RB? Of the top 5, only one made the Playoffs. SB winner had the 29th RB.


And the #1 RB in the playoffs.

I'd say the same things about Walter Payton as Barry Sanders, minus the FB thing because I didn't see him play without one. And Walter would add another dimension, that you don't get with Barry Sanders.

Walter Payton could catch and was a threat doing so. I actually would say Walter Payton is worth more to your offense than Barry Sanders because of the dual threat. Barry couldn't catch that well, or maybe wasn't thrown the ball enough, either way, no one was really scared of him catching the ball.

One reason I think Elite QB is more important than Elite RB would be longevity. QB's last longer than RB's thus your window for championships is wider.

You can win a Super Bowl with an average QB and an Elite RB, problem is, there's just not that many Elite RB's out there. I think the closest would be Adrian Peterson. Elite to me is doing it year in year out, consistently and I feel he's done that. The prick.

Again, I think having an Elite QB increases your chances more than having an Elite RB as I've said before.

But Barry Sanders/Walter Payton (I'd even say LaDanian Tomlinson or Jim Brown in there too) is always going to be taken over Dimitri Nance by any GM who wants their job the next day. I'd love to see a poll on that so you'd have your facts.

I mean, DIMITRI NANCE, give me a break. That's insanely disrespectful to the Elite RB's mentioned. I'm offended for them being in the same post together. At least you could have used Ryan Grant, someone who's started a meaningful game and put him at a lower salary.

The whole 10 million elsewhere is a win win for you because if you don't open your mind up to the possibilities, of course it looks great on paper, but its not like the salary cap is 80 million dollars either.

No, I'm done this is just too annoying- I tried man, I really tried seeing it like you painted it. I just... I can't believe anyone in their right mind would argue to justify DIMITRI NANCE over BARRY SANDERS or WALTER PAYTON and I tried to rationalize it myself.
Zero2Cool  
#54 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:10:10 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
I think an elite QB can make up for a so-so running game. As we saw with the Packers this past season. A great QB can use short passes to get the gains a RB would get, and has the ability to go downfield for the big play.

If all you have is a great RB, a defense can key on that and stop your offense dead.

Barry Sanders.......he was awesome. But how many of you remember when the Packer D held him to i believe minus one yard for an entire game? The Lions did nothing that game, cause the Packers keyed on Sanders.
I can only imagine what Sanders could have done with a decent QB.


Yep, as I said earlier, it's easier to stop the run than it is the pass. I agree with that, partially because I'm cocky enough to think I could out throw any defense, but no way could I out run them. :)
Greg C.  
#55 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:25:07 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
And Finny, your graph kind of proves my point. Elite D is #1. Elite QB is 2nd. Elite RB? Of the top 5, only one made the Playoffs. SB winner had the 29th RB.


And the #1 RB in the playoffs.


That's because the Packers played more playoff games (4) than any other team this year. Starks had one excellent game. He didn't produce a whole lot in the other three.

I agree that Zombie's example of Dimitri Nance is a bit over the top. I think you need a decent RB to have enough of a rushing threat to keep the defense honest. Grant and Starks are both plenty good enough. Brandon Jackson--probably not.
zombieslayer  
#56 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:35:42 PM(UTC)
Yeah, Nance might be extreme then. OK, let's go with B-Jack then. Similar salaries, and Jackson can get 60 yards on 15 carries. Nance maybe not.

I really do believe with an elite D and an elite QB, the importance of a good RB goes way down. We could have easily won the SB with Jackson. Heck, next year, hypothetically speaking, our receivers are healthy and actually catch the ball, can we win it all with Jackson? I'd say yes.
Zero2Cool  
#57 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:47:52 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Yeah, Nance might be extreme then. OK, let's go with B-Jack then. Similar salaries, and Jackson can get 60 yards on 15 carries. Nance maybe not.

I really do believe with an elite D and an elite QB, the importance of a good RB goes way down. We could have easily won the SB with Jackson. Heck, next year, hypothetically speaking, our receivers are healthy and actually catch the ball, can we win it all with Jackson? I'd say yes.


A - Elite QB + Brandon Jackson at 750k
B - Average QB + Barry Sanders @ 10 million.

Assuming everything is the same, I think the option A would have a more likely chance of winning a championship. You have no clue how hard that was to write.

Same team, with a starter from the draft, I'd say yes we could win next season with Brandon Jackson, because he's not a 60+ threat (yes, 71 long) but he's a threat to keep getting first downs (Urlacher?) and he's a threat out of the backfield.

I like Ryan Grant, but if I got his salary an incentives understood, I'd rather us move him, go with Brandon/James draft a RB.
Zero2Cool  
#58 Posted : Tuesday, March 15, 2011 11:50:23 PM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
" said: Go to Quoted Post
And the #1 RB in the playoffs.


That's because the Packers played more playoff games (4) than any other team this year. Starks had one excellent game. He didn't produce a whole lot in the other three.

I agree that Zombie's example of Dimitri Nance is a bit over the top. I think you need a decent RB to have enough of a rushing threat to keep the defense honest. Grant and Starks are both plenty good enough. Brandon Jackson--probably not.


But the numbers are what matter!! ;)

Really though, James Starks did make it less difficult for the Packers to win it all. Not saying it couldn't have been done without him, just saying he took a load off the passing game.
zombieslayer  
#59 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 12:28:35 AM(UTC)
Wow. Took 3 pages but it looks like we're all pretty much in agreement then. :thumbright:
macbob  
#60 Posted : Wednesday, March 16, 2011 1:36:40 AM(UTC)
" said: Go to Quoted Post
Macbob - Maybe I'm not stating my point very well. Rushing success is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you're the #1 rushing team or the #20. Your chances of winning the SB are exactly the same. Yes, you still need to hand the ball off. But you don't need to be good. Is that more clear?

Also, I went as far as saying an elite RB actually hurts the team by taking too many passes away from the offense. Also, he ends up asking for too much money where you're better off spending that money on a LB, DL, or DB.


Zombie-I do understand what you're trying to say. It just doesn't make sense to me, logically. It's like saying 3 > 4.

If I hand the ball off to a RB, and he runs 90 yds for a TD, next time it looks like I'm going to hand it off to him the safetys are going to be coming up to stuff the box. Only it's a play action fake, and I've got Jennings streaking down the field, 1-on-1 with his defender and no help over the top. If the first run got stuffed for 0, then the play action wouldn't attract as much attention and there's likely a safety over the top.

So running successfully will attract the defense's attention more than running less successfully. Running successfully has GOT to be more relevant than simply running. And if running successfully is irrelevant, running in general is even more irrelevant.

To me, it appears the point you're trying to make is that running success was insignificant (e.g., irrelevant) to determining the SB winners. The statistics tend to not support that argument.

The SB winners over the last 20 years ranked 8th in rush attempts and 10th in rushing yardage during the regular season--both significantly toward the top of the league in both categories. And during the SB itself, the team with more rushing attempts has won 10 of the last 11 (with this year being the sole exception).

I agree with your comment that an elite RB can hurt you if it causes your offensive coordinator to skew too far to the running game.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>
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
hardrocker950 (14h) : I doubt that happens...
Smokey (24-Mar) : GB needs to trade up in the draft to get THE Ohio State CB - Marshon Lattimore !
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : QB Mark Sanchez joining the Bears.
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : double it up
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : I'm kidding, relax....
Zero2Cool (24-Mar) : and now he has been cut
uffda udfa (23-Mar) : Per Schefter: Former Skins DT Ricky Jean Francois signed a one-year, $3M deal with Packers, per source.
uffda udfa (23-Mar) : Per Schefter: FormerSkins DT Ricky Jean Francois signed a one-year, $3M deal with Packers, per source.
Zero2Cool (23-Mar) : lol by .01 not what i thought
Zero2Cool (23-Mar) : he's faster than Montgomery
uffda udfa (22-Mar) : Packers re-sign Christine Michael
Smokey (22-Mar) : Easier said than fixed .
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : The web version lists who started the thread; the mobile version lists who last updated it.
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : Also, there's a weird disparity between the web version and online version of this site.
Nonstopdrivel (22-Mar) : ;-)
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?
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
54m / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

9h / Green Bay Packers Talk / wpr

17h / Around The NFL / Smokey

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Smokey

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

23-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / PackFanWithTwins

23-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

23-Mar / Announcements / Zero2Cool

23-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

23-Mar / Fantasy Sports Talk / wpr

23-Mar / Fantasy Sports Talk / Smokey

22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Nonstopdrivel

Headlines