Discussion Board
Welcome Guest! You can login or register. Login or Register.
5 Pages«<2345>

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Zero2Cool  
#61 Posted : Sunday, January 13, 2013 5:43:10 PM(UTC)
I just read that Robert Griffin III isn't a pass first QB, yet he has the best completion percentage out of all those mentioned and was fourth in such category in the NFL.
Gaycandybacon  
#62 Posted : Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:15:41 PM(UTC)
Cal2GreenBay said: Go to Quoted Post
Blue Leopard, great post. My sentiments exactly. The old way is not exactly the best way.
As for the other post argument that this will be stopped next year. Really? How?

The wildcat was stopped in the season it was implemented. The reason it was stopped was because it was a FLAWED strategy. Put the running back in the QB role and run from there. There's no real threat of pass. It's just a wrinkle in the run game. Ronnie Brown(a running back) or Tebow.

Tebow is not a dynamic runner, and was a halfback running in the QB position. He was a flea flicking QB at best and even though his package was run well in Denver, it made the team one dimensional.

At this point, the Packers are ALSO one dimensional because the only top flight part of the offense is Aaron's passing ability. The run game is not up to par, and Aaron is a good but not ELITE runner at the QB position. The packers need a dynamic running back to complement Aaron at this point to make the offense be multi-dimensional. Aaron's not going to get any faster.

There's no glaring flaw in the READ OPTION play as with the wildcat, if you have the 3 factors: A good passing game, a good running game, and a dynamic running QB.

It is so hard to defend the READ OPTION(not wildcat)part of an offense with a pass first QB with Dynamic running ability because the threat of a good running game, a good passing game, and a super fast QB is too much for a defense to account for. You can't cover ALL of it.
You have to give up something. The packers had to bank on Kaepernick beating them, and he did. They weren't going to lose by passing, or by Frank Gore's running.

This is not something that the NFL defenses will easily solve. This is also not something that will go away because the QBs will injure themselves by being too careless(like RG3).

Russell Wilson, Kaepernick KNOW HOW TO RUN and KNOW HOW TO AVOID CONTACT. They are going to surive and be around.

This is not a fad, or a one hit wonder. This style of quarterback is the evolution of football.
Terry Bradshaw on FOX said it, Tom Jackson on ESPN said it, and many NFL writers said it.

We are witnessing a new style and it's exciting.
Change is not that easy for everyone, I guess...


I said Tebow build as in he could hold up in that offense because he's such a big guy. As for the Wildcat, whenever it was stopped it was stopped. Idk when, but it didn't last long. I believe that this new offense will be stopped or at least slowed down following this season. Defensive coaches will watch the film on all those formentioned QB's and will adjust to it. I agree it's harder to stop than the wildcat of course. But I could see it being similar to the wildcat not lasting as long in the NFL as much as people think. That's all I'm saying.
Gaycandybacon  
#63 Posted : Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:19:45 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
I just read that Robert Griffin III isn't a pass first QB, yet he has the best completion percentage out of all those mentioned and was fourth in such category in the NFL.


I think he's both, like Arod. But his offense dictates he's just a running QB in the eyes of people. And it leads them to believe he's a running QB.
blueleopard  
#64 Posted : Sunday, January 13, 2013 6:30:55 PM(UTC)
Zero2Cool said: Go to Quoted Post
I just read that Robert Griffin III isn't a pass first QB, yet he has the best completion percentage out of all those mentioned and was fourth in such category in the NFL.


Even if I correct myself, which I will, and say he's pass-first, because he definitely is -- it only fuels the argument that the run-option is pretty much unstoppable at this point in time.
doddpower  
#65 Posted : Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:58:37 PM(UTC)
blueleopard said: Go to Quoted Post
Even if I correct myself, which I will, and say he's pass-first, because he definitely is -- it only fuels the argument that the run-option is pretty much unstoppable at this point in time.


It very well may be, at this point in time. I think the argument is that defenses will catch up, as they always have to everything in the past. And at this point, all I see is three pure pocket passers and one mobile QB on a team that is loaded in every other way also in the championship games. I'm not sure how much can be said about the current situation other than that having a great pocket passer is key and that the 49'ers are a very good team, from top to bottom. Or most importantly, I would say, a great defense.

RainX  
#66 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 10:29:53 AM(UTC)
Capers will probably get one more year. Injuries aren't an excuse, but no Nick Perry, DJ Smith, or Desmond Bishop the second half of the season didn't exactly help the front seven this year. The overall defense improved quite a bit this year from a year ago which is why Capers gets one more year imo. I think it's clear this defense needs that inside rush or Cullen Jenkins type player. We're seen spurts of it from CJ Wilson, Jerel Worthy, and even Mike Neal this year, but it wasn't consistent enough imo.

I love Woodson and he still has a place on the defense imo, but he'll need to restructure his contract in the off-season to be more cap friendly if he plans to stay. He's been banged up a lot the past few years and missed a significant chunk of the season. Too much so to have that happen again with a guy and such a high cap number. I wouldn't mind cutting or trading AJ Hawk because as "steady" as he's been, the money could be better spent on extensions for Raji and Matthews and giving the reigns to DJ Smith and Desmond Bishop at ILB.

The secondary for the most part has some decent depth and the playing time a lot of the younger guys got was invaluable imo. With a consistent pass rush, this secondary can be as good as it was during the Super Bowl run imo.
PackFanWithTwins  
#67 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 10:45:43 AM(UTC)
We have been reloading every year. We have been the youngest or one of the youngest almost every year. It is impossible to bring guys in at every position. We reloaded our secondary last offseason and it is paying off. They got valuable experience this year. We need to improve our Oline, and our front 7 on defense.

If we can improve either the Front 7 on defense or the Oline nearly as much as we improved the Secondary last offseason. We will be in good shape.
User is suspended until 5/28/2018 11:54:40 AM(UTC) DakotaT  
#68 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:11:06 AM(UTC)
PackFanWithTwins said: Go to Quoted Post
We have been reloading every year. We have been the youngest or one of the youngest almost every year. It is impossible to bring guys in at every position. We reloaded our secondary last offseason and it is paying off. They got valuable experience this year. We need to improve our Oline, and our front 7 on defense.

If we can improve either the Front 7 on defense or the Oline nearly as much as we improved the Secondary last offseason. We will be in good shape.


The problem with restocking the pond is the position from which we pick every year. San Francisco and Seattle repeatedly picked in the top 10 of each round for nearly a decade to build what they currently have, while we remained competitive and picked in the twenties. There is going to be a difference in blue chip talent on your teams. With the exception of Raji and Hawk, the rest of our team consists of Green Bay draft picks above 20. Is the answer to tank and reload, or remain as competitive as possible, while doing an exceptional job drafting from a disadvantage? Ted has hit on a lot of picks, but without the infusion of top level talent once in a while - the team suffers. The biggest need of this team is a power running back, to help us control the clock, so our defense is not worn down all the time, and a head coach that doesn't abandon the run when he gets behind. I thought he learned that lesson already.
gbguy20  
#69 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:12:29 AM(UTC)
I agree we should tank a few seasons so we can be competitive with the niners and seattle.
Zero2Cool  
#70 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:14:20 AM(UTC)
The Packers are seemingly reloading every year and that lack of maturation and growth within the system is part of the reason for communication failures.

Draft better, or coach'em up better. That is directed more towards the OL than anything. I think the Packers are fairly well coached in most positions.
PackFanWithTwins  
#71 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:26:10 AM(UTC)
DakotaT said: Go to Quoted Post
The problem with restocking the pond is the position from which we pick every year. San Francisco and Seattle repeatedly picked in the top 10 of each round for nearly a decade to build what they currently have, while we remained competitive and picked in the twenties. There is going to be a difference in blue chip talent on your teams. With the exception of Raji and Hawk, the rest of our team consists of Green Bay draft picks below above 20. Is the answer to tank and reload, or remain as competitive as possible, while doing an exceptional job drafting from a disadvantage? Ted has hit on a lot of picks, but without the infusion of top level talent once in a while - the team suffers. The biggest need of this team is a power running back, to help us control the clock, so our defense is not worn down all the time, and a head coach that doesn't abandon the run when he gets behind. I thought he learned that lesson already.



I disagree with the biggest need being a power running back. I think our RB are fine. It is the run blocking that lacks. Later in the year, I have finally seen a move away from the outside stretch zone blocking, and it improved our run game. Improve the Oline, and concentrate more on running between the tackles. No more finese, let the Oline get mean.

If we tank for a season or two in order to get a couple "blue chippers", what are we going to lose in the process? Players dont' like playing for losing teams. with this team and the needs, I would be much happier trading up to get one. We have depth and for a year, can afford not to draft 7 or 8 guys and come out with 3,4 or 5 better quality guys.
User is suspended until 5/28/2018 11:54:40 AM(UTC) DakotaT  
#72 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:26:47 AM(UTC)
gbguy20 said: Go to Quoted Post
I agree we should tank a few seasons so we can be competitive with the niners and seattle.


You agree with whom? I asked a question if tanking was the way to go. I don't think you tank with the caliber of quarterback we have in his prime. My point it is extremely difficult to keep the talent level on the field drafting so low in each round.
gbguy20  
#73 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:33:14 AM(UTC)
fuck it lets tank
User is suspended until 5/28/2018 11:54:40 AM(UTC) DakotaT  
#74 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:34:27 AM(UTC)
gbguy20 said: Go to Quoted Post
fuck it lets tank


Yeah but what if you draft another Hawk, or worse Jamal Reynolds or Tony Mandarich?
gbguy20  
#75 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 11:36:02 AM(UTC)
what if we draft alex smith?
doddpower  
#76 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 12:10:28 PM(UTC)
gbguy20 said: Go to Quoted Post
what if we draft alex smith?


I'm obviously a little bias because I have been high on Nick Perry since he was drafted, but I think his development could have a lot to do with the Packers defensive success in the future, regardless of 3-4 or 4-3 schemes. I read an article that said the Packers have to get bigger, stronger, more physical, and faster on defense. Perry is all of those things. His technique isn't refined, especially as a 3-4 OLB, but the guy is a physical freak in terms of the combination of strength and speed. I have no doubt that's why Ted Thompson drafted him due to his athleticism and trusted Perry and the coaching staff for his development. He is just the kind of player the defense needs more of. He may never develop and may be a bust pick, but from a pure size, strength, and speed standpoint, the guy has it all. His development will have a lot to do with the progress of the Packers defense. I think he would very quickly be an impact player as a 4-3 defensive end.

To that point, I've been thinking the Packers current personnel on defense is much better suited to a traditional 4-3 scheme, anyway. Most of our defensive tackles are likely better suited and have played in a 4-3 style in college: BJ Raji, Worthy, Daniels, etc. Defensive ends like Mike Neal would still make solid depth in a 4-3, but can also move inside to DT on passing downs. Pickett would still be a beast next to Raji as the two DT's in the base defense. Nick Perry is likely better suited as a pass rushing defensive end, regardless if he can make the transition to OLB, or not. Clay Mathews, of course, would be the one wildcard. It's obvious he can still rush the passer as a hybrid type of defensive end, but it would be interesting to see how they would use him in the base defense. Dallas is changing to a traditional 4-3 Tampa 2 defense this season, despite having two great OLB's. It will be interesting to see how they utilize Ware.

Additionally, I don't think we have any great 3-4 MLB's. Bishop could certainly qualify, but that's about it. At the same time, he would still be a solid 4-3 MLB, although his same deficiencies would still be there. Scheme can only cover up so much. Hawk can be a decent Will or Sam OLB as he has in the past, and the combination of Brad Jones and DJ Smith make for great depth and/or replacement starters. There are many who have argued Hawk isn't a 3-4 ILB from the beginning, and they are probably correct.

I personally really like the 3-4, and would like to see it stick around in Green Bay. I think it can offer the most flexibility for a very creative coach with the proper amount of talent. However, Green Bay doesn't seem to have that talent currently. Also, a lot of the recent players that have been brought it are arguably better fits for the traditional 4-3 style, so I can't help but wonder if there's been some thought about transitioning to a 4-3 in the near future. Of course, those players could have simply been the best available, so who knows. It's interesting to think about, though, because this defense might be much more suited for a hybrid 4-3 style of defense, perhaps like the Patriots are running, rather than Dom Capers aggressive 3-4. A bright young 4-3 coach might be able to turn this defense around very quick, given the personnel. Who knows.
Bigbyfan  
#77 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 1:14:05 PM(UTC)
Quote:
Green Bay - Inside Green Bay Packers headquarters Sunday, the defense was nowhere to be found, just like the night before in a 45-31 divisional playoff loss to the San Francisco 49ers.

As the offense, special teams and injured players made their final locker room appearance in front of reporters Sunday, defensive players were conspicuous by their absence. Not a single starter was around to assess the future of a unit that for the third time in four years failed the team in the playoffs.

Maybe it was appropriate that the whereabouts of roughly half the team was uncertain because so is its future. When the Packers convene for organized team activities after the April draft, a whole bunch of introductions might be in order.

The task in front of general manager Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy following the 579-yard beating the Packers' defense took Saturday night is to figure out whether they can go forward with the same coaches and same personnel philosophy.

Under defensive coordinator Dom Capers the past four seasons, the defense has at times been unable to stop the run, unable to communicate consistently in the secondary and unable to stand up to hot quarterbacks. Its saving grace other times has been creating turnovers and getting sacks, but too often the season has ended on a disappointing note.

As the week goes on, McCarthy is going to have to decide whether Capers has lost his touch and no longer has the ability to keep up with the NFL's increasingly diverse offensive attacks or is a victim of Thompson's draft-only philosophy and neglect in acquiring the bruising linebackers and safeties it takes to compete with the physical offenses of NFC contenders San Francisco and the New York Giants.

As players are wont to do, the Packers defend Capers and his staff to reporters, refusing publicly to turn on the same guys who helped them win Super Bowl rings. But it was also clear after the loss what players were speaking of when they said they were out-schemed and underprepared against 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and the read-option plays he used en route to breaking the NFL record for quarterback rushing yards with 181.

"Coach Capers is a great coach," said linebacker Desmond Bishop, who spent the season on injured reserve. "You can't have a great defense and win the Super Bowl one year and then be kicked out the next year, or a year or two later. I don't think it should work like that at all.

"I think Dom Capers is a great coach. It's just something I think we have to look at internally as a team and not really worry about going outside of the team. It's something we have to look at within ourselves. I think we will address that and be fine."

Should he decide to part ways with Capers, McCarthy wouldn't necessarily have to scrap the Steelers 3-4 system the Packers are currently using. Defensive line coach Mike Trgovac and safeties coach Darren Perry would be options if McCarthy chose to promote from within and keep the same system.

There are plenty of 3-4 practitioners so it wouldn't necessarily mean McCarthy would have to start from scratch on defense if he hired from somewhere else. The Packers have invested a lot into 3-4-type players and McCarthy likes the attacking style of that scheme.

But before McCarthy decides a coaching change is necessary, Thompson needs to examine his philosophy for stocking the roster with talent. Thompson devoted his first six draft choices last spring to defensive players, but did not sign a veteran free agent and made Capers and his staff make do this season with a bunch of rookies.

It's hard to have a successful defense when the roster is continually turning over and isn't allowed to mature. Whether that has been the case with the Packers is up for debate.

But what isn't is that Thompson has leaned away from acquiring big, physical players like Bishop in favor of more agile players like A.J. Hawk, Morgan Burnett, Brad Jones, D.J. Smith, M.D. Jennings, Sam Shields, Frank Zombo, Casey Hayward and Mike Daniels.

First-round pick Nick Perry was more in the Bishop style of physical player but was tentative in his transition from college end to pro outside linebacker and was lost for the season halfway through with a wrist injury. Rookie inside linebacker Terrell Manning might be able to add some pop to the lineup next year, but after battling a training camp illness the best he could do was contribute on special teams.

Safety Jerron McMillian, another physical type played like a rookie and the jury is still out on his future. His height will always be an issue. Cornerback Davon House looked like he might add some muscle to the defense, but he dislocated his shoulder in training camp and was not the same the rest of the season.

The combination of Ryan Pickett and B.J. Raji has been solid in the middle, but when C.J. Wilson got hurt Capers had no one who could serve as the third run-stuffer in his base defense. Mike Neal, Jerel Worthy and Daniels were poor substitutes for the double-team-eating ends necessary to stop the run in the 3-4 defense.

As safety Charles Woodson said after the loss to the 49ers, "Maybe we have to get bigger and faster."

It will be up to Thompson to decide whether to go on with Hawk and his $5.45 million salary cap number or use a top pick to find a complement to Bishop, who is coming off a torn hamstring and has a lot of hurdles to clear before proving he's the player he once was.

Thompson also probably will part ways with Woodson, who with a $10 million salary cap number is way too expensive to keep around for a 14-year veteran that has suffered two broken collarbones.

Thompson is not one open to change, but he did commit to rebuilding the defense last spring with the six draft picks and he might need to break his resistance to free agency to turn this defense around. Salary cap space would be available if he dumps Hawk and Woodson.

As for the rest of the roster, receivers Donald Driver and Greg Jennings are all but gone, which will mean salary cap money can be spent elsewhere. Tight end Jermichael Finley came around enough at the end that his $8.25 million cap number is worth carrying, but decisions have to be made on whether to keep running backs James Starks ($1.3 million) and John Kuhn ($1.9 million).

There will be change around 1265 Lombardi Ave. How much is a question only Thompson and McCarthy can answer.


Link

This article pretty sums up my feelings on the subject. Ted Thompson has focused more on "finesse" type players and this has hurt us. Yes turnovers look good, but I'd give up being among the league leaders in turnovers if it meant we would get some bruisers who could stand up to the elite offenses we traditionally struggle against.
dyeah_gb  
#78 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 1:58:58 PM(UTC)
Bigbyfan said: Go to Quoted Post
Link

This article pretty sums up my feelings on the subject. Ted Thompson has focused more on "finesse" type players and this has hurt us. Yes turnovers look good, but I'd give up being among the league leaders in turnovers if it meant we would get some bruisers who could stand up to the elite offenses we traditionally struggle against.


I Like the article. One of my worries about this team is whether we have to enter rebuilding mode. Maybe we just completed our rebuilding year because of all the injuries.

doddpower  
#79 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 2:16:21 PM(UTC)
dyeah_gb said: Go to Quoted Post
I Like the article. One of my worries about this team is whether we have to enter rebuilding mode. Maybe we just completed our rebuilding year because of all the injuries.



The Packers aren't in rebuilding mode, necessarily. A lot depends on the 2012 draft class and the six defensive players that were drafted. How Perry, Worthy, Hayward, McMillan, Daniels, and Manning develop will have a lot to do with the success of this defense for the next 2-3 seasons. Guys like House and Neal will also factor in, as they both need to continue to improve, but have shown flashed. At this point, I think the Packers pretty much know what they're going to get out of Raji, Burnett, Williams, Shields, Hawk, Pickett, Wilson, Woodson, etc. Naturally, if the 2012 draft class flops, it could be a rough few years. I'm not that worried about the offense. Yeah, it might not be able to ever reach the level of 2011 again, but that doesn't mean they won't be good enough to compete in every game, even with losing Jennings and/or Finley. They just need the defense to help pick up some of the slack, imo.
Gaycandybacon  
#80 Posted : Monday, January 14, 2013 2:33:21 PM(UTC)
doddpower said: Go to Quoted Post
I'm obviously a little bias because I have been high on Nick Perry since he was drafted, but I think his development could have a lot to do with the Packers defensive success in the future, regardless of 3-4 or 4-3 schemes. I read an article that said the Packers have to get bigger, stronger, more physical, and faster on defense. Perry is all of those things. His technique isn't refined, especially as a 3-4 OLB, but the guy is a physical freak in terms of the combination of strength and speed. I have no doubt that's why Ted Thompson drafted him due to his athleticism and trusted Perry and the coaching staff for his development. He is just the kind of player the defense needs more of. He may never develop and may be a bust pick, but from a pure size, strength, and speed standpoint, the guy has it all. His development will have a lot to do with the progress of the Packers defense. I think he would very quickly be an impact player as a 4-3 defensive end.

To that point, I've been thinking the Packers current personnel on defense is much better suited to a traditional 4-3 scheme, anyway. Most of our defensive tackles are likely better suited and have played in a 4-3 style in college: BJ Raji, Worthy, Daniels, etc. Defensive ends like Mike Neal would still make solid depth in a 4-3, but can also move inside to DT on passing downs. Pickett would still be a beast next to Raji as the two DT's in the base defense. Nick Perry is likely better suited as a pass rushing defensive end, regardless if he can make the transition to OLB, or not. Clay Mathews, of course, would be the one wildcard. It's obvious he can still rush the passer as a hybrid type of defensive end, but it would be interesting to see how they would use him in the base defense. Dallas is changing to a traditional 4-3 Tampa 2 defense this season, despite having two great OLB's. It will be interesting to see how they utilize Ware.

Additionally, I don't think we have any great 3-4 MLB's. Bishop could certainly qualify, but that's about it. At the same time, he would still be a solid 4-3 MLB, although his same deficiencies would still be there. Scheme can only cover up so much. Hawk can be a decent Will or Sam OLB as he has in the past, and the combination of Brad Jones and DJ Smith make for great depth and/or replacement starters. There are many who have argued Hawk isn't a 3-4 ILB from the beginning, and they are probably correct.

I personally really like the 3-4, and would like to see it stick around in Green Bay. I think it can offer the most flexibility for a very creative coach with the proper amount of talent. However, Green Bay doesn't seem to have that talent currently. Also, a lot of the recent players that have been brought it are arguably better fits for the traditional 4-3 style, so I can't help but wonder if there's been some thought about transitioning to a 4-3 in the near future. Of course, those players could have simply been the best available, so who knows. It's interesting to think about, though, because this defense might be much more suited for a hybrid 4-3 style of defense, perhaps like the Patriots are running, rather than Dom Capers aggressive 3-4. A bright young 4-3 coach might be able to turn this defense around very quick, given the personnel. Who knows.


So our big,strong guys on our defense now is Bishop, Raji, Picket, Perry, Matthews and Woodson. Respectfully at their positions of course. Maybe we could weed some of the smaller guys out that aren't productive?

Like Hawk, we could probably easily replace him in this draft, free agency or on our team. I could see them letting him go like a lot of you. I like Jones potential too, and he's big, strong, and fast. Just starting out at the MLB position. I bet he'll be a lot better next year. I wouldn't mind seeing him play beside Bishop. Maybe even provide a complex scheme to the will or mike linebacker if we decide to go with another D-coach. Our secondarys excellent but they have problems tackling. The weak links are Willams and Burnett. Burnett can tackle, He's just really inconsistent at it. Tramon looks like he has trouble shedding blocks. Maybe bring in some taller, more physical guys in the mix. Most of our Corners right now are 5'11 or lower.

All in all I agree we need a BIG front 7 no matter the scheme, and we're track with that Perry pick. We just took some production over product with Dainels and Mcmillian in the draft. Even though they have been decent you can't just rely on doing that again.
Rss Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages«<2345>
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 (24-Jun) : Guest ? Join us Today !
Smokey (24-Jun) : Saturday , it's PIZZA NIGHT !
Smokey (23-Jun) : Friday is Seafood day , not Pizza night . Eat a Shrimp !
Cheesey (23-Jun) : Happy B-day rocker!
Zero2Cool (22-Jun) : Today's Birthdays: hardrocker950 (33)
Smokey (22-Jun) : Coffee anyone ?
Smokey (21-Jun) : good show
Cheesey (21-Jun) : APPLE with ice cream!
Smokey (20-Jun) : Cherry with Vanilla Ice Cream !!
Cheesey (20-Jun) : APPLE!
Smokey (20-Jun) : Apple or Cherry Pie ?
TheKanataThrilla (18-Jun) : The only have 2 preseason games. I like that as the fans get to see more of the starters.
TheKanataThrilla (18-Jun) : Next week I believe the CFL season starts. Go Redblacks!!!
Smokey (18-Jun) : Been researching CFL , Edmonton Eskimos have the best colors/uniforms .
Smokey (18-Jun) : When does the CFL Season start anyway ?
Smokey (18-Jun) : Saw Flute CFL highlights in the day, full CFL game was /is rare .
TheKanataThrilla (18-Jun) : I wish many of you would have seen Doug Flutie in the CFL. Absolute beauty.
TheKanataThrilla (18-Jun) : Vince Young cut from Sask. Roughriders. Good for him to consider the CFL, but only a select few NFL QB castoffs are a good CFL fit.
Smokey (17-Jun) : R 2
Zero2Cool (17-Jun) : Not all hackers are bad
Smokey (16-Jun) : Public Hangings for Hackers .
Cheesey (16-Jun) : No, he said HACKERS!
Smokey (16-Jun) : Did you say Crackers ?
Zero2Cool (16-Jun) : PACKERS PACKERS PACKERS
Cheesey (16-Jun) : "That is true, my dear Smokey!"LOL!
Smokey (15-Jun) : dat ? Brer Cheesey ?
Cheesey (15-Jun) : True dat, Smokey. MUCH better!
Smokey (15-Jun) : I like the fillets/tenders, they usually are a better deal.
Cheesey (15-Jun) : Good one, Porforis! Made me laugh!
Porforis (15-Jun) : Shoulda gone with Kentucky Fried Chickadee
Cheesey (15-Jun) : Last time I had KFC, the pieces were so small it should be renamed "Kentucky Fried Sparrow"
Cheesey (15-Jun) : POPEYES! (Or Churches chicken)
Smokey (15-Jun) : KFC or Popeyes Chicken ?
Smokey (15-Jun) : It's grocery shopping day !
Smokey (15-Jun) : Why did they shelter ?
Please sign in to use Fan Shout
2017 Packers Schedule
Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
SEAHAWKS
Sunday, Sep 17 @ 7:30 PM
at Falcons
Sunday, Sep 24 @ 3:25 PM
BENGALS
Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:25 PM
BEARS
Sunday, Oct 8 @ 3:25 PM
at Cowboys
Sunday, Oct 15 @ 12:00 PM
at Vikings
Sunday, Oct 22 @ 12:00 PM
SAINTS
Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 AM
- BYE -
Monday, Nov 6 @ 7:30 PM
LIONS
Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
at Bears
Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
RAVENS
Sunday, Nov 26 @ 7:30 PM
at Steelers
Sunday, Dec 3 @ 12:00 PM
BUCCANEERS
Sunday, Dec 10 @ 12:00 PM
at Browns
Saturday, Dec 23 @ 7:30 PM
VIKINGS
Sunday, Dec 31 @ 12:00 PM
at Lions
Saturday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
at Panthers
Think About It
Think About It
Recent Topics
1h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / TheKanataThrilla

5h / Green Bay Packers Talk / steveishere

13h / Around The NFL / Smokey

13h / Football Familiarity / Smokey

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

24-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / isocleas2

24-Jun / Around The NFL / beast

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

23-Jun / Green Bay Packers Talk / sschind

Headlines