Join Our Green Bay Packers Interactive Community!

We have been providing fans with the best source of Packers information since 2006!
Your participation is greatly anticipated!
Login or Register.
3 Pages123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline wpr  
#1 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 6:44:11 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3,152
Applause Received: 1,522

JSOnline wrote:
Having spent much of the week researching the long career of No. 2 quarterback Seneca Wallace, the guess here is that even if the Packers were to lose Aaron Rodgers early Monday night against the Chicago Bears they’d find ways to finish 11-5.


McGinn points to all the players GB has lost due to injury over the past 4 years and still won so they could do it if Rodgers went down for the rest of the season. THAT IS BECAUSE THEY HAD AARON FOR MOST OF THOSE GAMES BOB. They may stumble along and win against weaker teams because of their defense but they will be a shell of their former self with all the injuries they have already had this year AND losing Aaron they would not be a competitive team.
UserPostedImage

"Will you follow me, one last time?" Thorin Oakenshield
Offline nerdmann  
#2 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:05:36 AM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,714
Applause Received: 665

FACT. This team won most of it's Superbowls WITHOUT Aaron Rodgers.

Seneca is a career journeyman. But as McGinn points out, he's 11-10 against the spread, which controls for the shittiness of your team.

We've got enough weapons around him that we could still win. I know I always use this example, but it's true. Remember how everyone was wailing and giving up when Barclay got his first start last year? Well it turned out Barclay could get it done.

Keep in mind, we've also got that running game now. Seneca can turn and hand the ball to Eddie Lacy. Not a problem.

If anything, the offense would have to be scaled down, like it has been with all these receivers out. As we have seen, that forces Mike to adhere to FUNDAMENTALS. For example, instead of trying to score fast, so as to rack up as many stats as possible, they're cultivating time of possession. This keeps the defense fresh, wears down the OTHER defense (as we saw against the Queens) and has the added side benefit of preventing the other team from running nearly as many plays on offense.

Seneca's not gonna be passing up open guys, looking for the deep routes to get open. He's gonna be getting the ball out in 2.5.

Game manager.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Online texaspackerbacker  
#3 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:07:37 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 482
Applause Received: 292

Anything is possible, but I doubt it.

The Packers O Line just doesn't give a QB much time to throw. Maybe Wallace could run for his life and throw on the run, but not anything like Aaron Rodgers. Also, Rodgers is disciplined way beyond anything I've seen from any other QB in terms of not making ill-advised throws. Maybe Wallace is a little bit that way too, but NOBODY is like Aaron Rodgers.

As for a running game, whenever the D of the other team knows it's coming, our line just can't seem to open any holes. Lacy is better than anything we have had in a long time, but he can't make something out of nothing like Adrian Peterson or Barry Sanders or O.J. or Jim Brown or Gayle Sayers (I see a little bit of that in the Badgers Gordon - but that's a different topic).

Without Rodgers, we would be sunk against any decent team. Probably the Bears still qualify as that.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 11/3/2013(UTC)
Offline nerdmann  
#4 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:27:16 AM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,714
Applause Received: 665

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Anything is possible, but I doubt it.

The Packers O Line just doesn't give a QB much time to throw. Maybe Wallace could run for his life and throw on the run, but not anything like Aaron Rodgers. Also, Rodgers is disciplined way beyond anything I've seen from any other QB in terms of not making ill-advised throws. Maybe Wallace is a little bit that way too, but NOBODY is like Aaron Rodgers.

As for a running game, whenever the D of the other team knows it's coming, our line just can't seem to open any holes. Lacy is better than anything we have had in a long time, but he can't make something out of nothing like Adrian Peterson or Barry Sanders or O.J. or Jim Brown or Gayle Sayers (I see a little bit of that in the Badgers Gordon - but that's a different topic).

Without Rodgers, we would be sunk against any decent team. Probably the Bears still qualify as that.


Bullshit.

Aaron doesn't make ill advised throws? Really? He won't throw a Hail Mary at the end of the half, because he's afraid of having an INT on his stat sheet. That's true. But did you see those TDs to Jordy last week? Dude wasn't open. Aaron zinged it right past the CB's helmet.

And yeah Seneca is a running QB. So much so, that he's actually played WR in the NFL. But he's also not gonna be holding the ball for 8.5.

As for Eddie Lacy, he's made something out of nothing many times. I still think Franklin is better at that. He's a little shiftier, he's just being taught a lesson about ball security.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline wpr  
#5 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:41:24 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3,152
Applause Received: 1,522

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
FACT. This team won most of it's Superbowls WITHOUT Aaron Rodgers.

.

Totally and completely FALSE.
THIS team has won nothing with or without Rodgers when it comes to Superbowls. THIS team has not even made it to the playoffs yet. You can not look at 1960's and say because they won without Aaron the current team can win. The guys who played back then are too old now.
UserPostedImage

"Will you follow me, one last time?" Thorin Oakenshield
thanks Post received 2 applause.
texaspackerbacker on 11/3/2013(UTC), sschind on 11/3/2013(UTC)
Online texaspackerbacker  
#6 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 8:07:32 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 482
Applause Received: 292

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
Bullsh!t.

Aaron doesn't make ill advised throws? Really? He won't throw a Hail Mary at the end of the half, because he's afraid of having an INT on his stat sheet. That's true. But did you see those TDs to Jordy last week? Dude wasn't open. Aaron zinged it right past the CB's helmet.

And yeah Seneca is a running QB. So much so, that he's actually played WR in the NFL. But he's also not gonna be holding the ball for 8.5.

As for Eddie Lacy, he's made something out of nothing many times. I still think Franklin is better at that. He's a little shiftier, he's just being taught a lesson about ball security.


I didn't say Rodgers is a machine that NEVER puts it up for grabs or whatever (those throws to Nelson certainly weren't an example of THAT).

As for Wallace running, I would rather have had Vince Young. Undoubtedly Wallace could escape and throw it sometimes, maybe even occasionally complete. The point is, our O Line, sadly, makes that necessary way too often. The point also is, NOBODY does it quite like Aaron Rodgers - not even close.

I like Lacy a lot - Franklin not so much, but without a great threat of a pass to set them up, the O Line just doesn't give them a chance - and that get hit in the backfield, bounce off 2 or 3 times, change direction and be off to the races thing just doesn't happen for either Lacy or Franklin like it does for those other guys I mentioned.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Wade  
#7 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 8:20:40 AM(UTC)
Wade

Rank: All Pro

Joined: 8/1/2009(UTC)
Location: nowhere of importance

Applause Given: 684
Applause Received: 717

Never understood what people see in McGinn. IMO he's just another hack reporter/pseudo-journalist. But that's me bias.

I do know I don't like tempting fate this way. Rodgers better not go down. Just because the Packers can whip a hapless team like the Vikings doesn't make them a juggernaut without their all-world QB.

Rodgers goes down for any length of time and this team isn't going to be a one-and-done wild card team.







And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)
thanks Post received 3 applause.
wpr on 11/3/2013(UTC), DakotaT on 11/3/2013(UTC), DoddPower on 11/3/2013(UTC)
Offline wpr  
#8 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 8:41:05 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3,152
Applause Received: 1,522

Originally Posted by: Wade Go to Quoted Post
Never understood what people see in McGinn. IMO he's just another hack reporter/pseudo-journalist. But that's me bias.

I do know I don't like tempting fate this way. Rodgers better not go down. Just because the Packers can whip a hapless team like the Vikings doesn't make them a juggernaut without their all-world QB.

Rodgers goes down for any length of time and this team isn't going to be a one-and-done wild card team.




I don't thin a screwball journalist wannabe can jinx a team or player. Otherwise every hack in the land would be writing/raving about the opposition's key player hoping to cause some sort of calamity. SI not withstanding.


Speaking of which- A few weeks ago they had the The Atlanta Braves' Upton brothers doing cheesecake pix with Kate Upton. One of the pix was the front cover. A reader wrote a letter to the editor telling them if Kate is injured and misses out on this year's photo shoots he will cancel his subscription to SI. I almost choked.
UserPostedImage

"Will you follow me, one last time?" Thorin Oakenshield
Offline nerdmann  
#9 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 8:49:30 AM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,714
Applause Received: 665

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
I didn't say Rodgers is a machine that NEVER puts it up for grabs or whatever (those throws to Nelson certainly weren't an example of THAT).

As for Wallace running, I would rather have had Vince Young. Undoubtedly Wallace could escape and throw it sometimes, maybe even occasionally complete. The point is, our O Line, sadly, makes that necessary way too often. The point also is, NOBODY does it quite like Aaron Rodgers - not even close.

I like Lacy a lot - Franklin not so much, but without a great threat of a pass to set them up, the O Line just doesn't give them a chance - and that get hit in the backfield, bounce off 2 or 3 times, change direction and be off to the races thing just doesn't happen for either Lacy or Franklin like it does for those other guys I mentioned.



Wallace is a pro's pro. Young is a headcase. The Randy Moss of QBs.

That said, they could bring him back in the offseason. Who knows how he'd look if he actually learned the offense. Wallace has a strong background in WCO (which is what he would be running, unlike Aaron's Run and Shoot.)

I hope to hell Aaron never goes down, but if he did I'd still tune in and watch, and I wouldn't even be shitting myself.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline DakotaT  
#10 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 9:04:14 AM(UTC)
DakotaT

Rank: Super Bowl MVP

Joined: 8/18/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 669
Applause Received: 1,375

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
Totally and completely FALSE.
THIS team has won nothing with or without Rodgers when it comes to Superbowls. THIS team has not even made it to the playoffs yet. You can not look at 1960's and say because they won without Aaron the current team can win. The guys who played back then are too old now.


This makes absolutely no sense, and Texas liking it proves the theorem. I know you guys are old, but Alzheimer's already?
UserPostedImage
Offline gbguy20  
#11 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 9:20:06 AM(UTC)
gbguy20

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/28/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 208
Applause Received: 285

terrible article idea, i hope the writer knocked on wood.
call me Dan
Offline DoddPower  
#12 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 11:05:14 AM(UTC)
DoddPower

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Gold: 2011

United States
Joined: 9/24/2007(UTC)
Location: Visalia, CA

Applause Given: 2,096
Applause Received: 530

Nerdmann so dumb. But we all knew that, anyway. Wanna Box? Wanna Box?
Online sschind  
#13 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 4:01:15 PM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 123
Applause Received: 450

Originally Posted by: DakotaT Go to Quoted Post
This makes absolutely no sense, and Texas liking it proves the theorem. I know you guys are old, but Alzheimer's already?


I guess it depends on what Nerd meant by "this team" If he meant the Green Bay Packers then yes, he is right If he meant the current team then no, they have not won anything besides 5 games this season. All of them with Aaron Rodgers.

If Rodgers were to go down against the Bears I think Wallace could easily manage 4-5 even 5-4 against the remainder of the schedule. 4-5 might get a WC 5-4 would probably get a WC and might even get the division depending on the wins.

Could he win vs playoff caliber opponents? I think he could. Could he win the SB, again I think he could but I wouldn't bet on it.
I respect your right to have your opinion but that doesn't mean I agree with it or respect you for having it.
Offline wpr  
#14 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 4:30:40 PM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3,152
Applause Received: 1,522

Originally Posted by: sschind Go to Quoted Post
I guess it depends on what Nerd meant by "this team" If he meant the Green Bay Packers then yes, he is right If he meant the current team then no, they have not won anything besides 5 games this season. All of them with Aaron Rodgers.

If Rodgers were to go down against the Bears I think Wallace could easily manage 4-5 even 5-4 against the remainder of the schedule. 4-5 might get a WC 5-4 would probably get a WC and might even get the division depending on the wins.

Could he win vs playoff caliber opponents? I think he could. Could he win the SB, again I think he could but I wouldn't bet on it.


Of course nerd meant the Packers organization as a whole which is a little silly. It doesn't matter what any other team did. Not even 2012 team which had so many of the current players on it. The team can only deal with the next game on their schedule not look backwards t years gone by in order to predict future victories.

If Wallace the full complement of starters he would have some chance of success but stripped as they are he will struggle because one thing is certain try as he might Wallace is no Rodgers and can not expect to have the same success Rodgers achieves.
UserPostedImage

"Will you follow me, one last time?" Thorin Oakenshield
Online texaspackerbacker  
#15 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:24:43 PM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 482
Applause Received: 292

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
Of course nerd meant the Packers organization as a whole which is a little silly. It doesn't matter what any other team did. Not even 2012 team which had so many of the current players on it. The team can only deal with the next game on their schedule not look backwards t years gone by in order to predict future victories.

If Wallace the full complement of starters he would have some chance of success but stripped as they are he will struggle because one thing is certain try as he might Wallace is no Rodgers and can not expect to have the same success Rodgers achieves.


I applauded wpr's post because I thought it was nice sarcasm. It's a big duh that WE won Super Bowls before Aaron Rodgers - before he was born. Oops, I said WE, and none of us were there blocking for or catching passes from Bart or Brett. At least I don't think so hahahaha.

To me, there's nothing sacred about the WCO. The scheme didn't make the personnel; The personnel made the scheme successful.
Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 11/4/2013(UTC)
Offline nerdmann  
#16 Posted : Sunday, November 3, 2013 7:33:22 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,714
Applause Received: 665

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
I applauded wpr's post because I thought it was nice sarcasm. It's a big duh that WE won Super Bowls before Aaron Rodgers - before he was born. Oops, I said WE, and none of us were there blocking for or catching passes from Bart or Brett. At least I don't think so hahahaha.

To me, there's nothing sacred about the WCO. The scheme didn't make the personnel; The personnel made the scheme successful.


HISTORICAL FACT: Only ONE Superbowl winning team in the history of the league, had Aaron Rodgers on it.

It CAN be done.

Here's another fact: The WCO is a system that is based on the "modern football era" rules protecting the passing game. When the rules changed in 1970, teams began to experiment with the passing game, chiefly among them "Air Coryell." Well the WCO was derivative of that, and is based upon the fundamentals of high percentage passing, ball control and hogging time of possession.

High percentage is high percentage. Let's say you have shitty players. Well, high percentage plays with those shitty players are more likely to be successful than low percentage plays with those same players, no? Now let's say you have great players. Still, high percentage plays are more likely to be successful.

Before the rules were changed to protect the passing game, it was more advantageous to run the ball. You might have heard of the guy who mastered that. The Superbowl trophy was named after him.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Offline olds70supreme  
#17 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 6:22:20 AM(UTC)
olds70supreme

Rank: 6th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/10/2009(UTC)

Applause Given: 18
Applause Received: 44

I'm guessing that Wallace might be able to split the final games, +/- 1. I don't think that would be good enough for the playoffs this year.

As for McGinn, I have to echo the question about him earlier in the thread. I've heard he is very well regarded among his peers, but I have trouble seeing it. I expect better than a complete homer for a beat writer, but he seems to either actively resent the team's success or is overcompensating in an effort to appear objective. The end result often is an article with really questionable logic.
blank
thanks Post received 1 applause.
DoddPower on 11/5/2013(UTC)
Offline wpr  
#18 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 6:36:46 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3,152
Applause Received: 1,522

Originally Posted by: nerdmann Go to Quoted Post
HISTORICAL FACT: Only ONE Superbowl winning team in the history of the league, had Aaron Rodgers on it.

It CAN be done.

Here's another fact: The WCO is a system that is based on the "modern football era" rules protecting the passing game. When the rules changed in 1970, teams began to experiment with the passing game, chiefly among them "Air Coryell." Well the WCO was derivative of that, and is based upon the fundamentals of high percentage passing, ball control and hogging time of possession.

High percentage is high percentage. Let's say you have sh!tty players. Well, high percentage plays with those sh!tty players are more likely to be successful than low percentage plays with those same players, no? Now let's say you have great players. Still, high percentage plays are more likely to be successful.

Before the rules were changed to protect the passing game, it was more advantageous to run the ball. You might have heard of the guy who mastered that. The Superbowl trophy was named after him.


Historical fact: past results are never the basis for future success.

I am not saying the Wallace could never win games. I am saying it is very unlikely to have Super Bowl success with him in charge. Look at all the WCO teams that have not won the SB year in and year out. Some pretty skillful QBs have come up short. They have to have talent around them in order to succeed. Aaron has succeeded in the absence of a lot of talent. Wallace would most likely not. Why it is not because the WCO is a failure (and GB doesn't run a true WCO by the way.) it is because he is not talented enough and with all the injuries the team's talent level has dropped. Don't look at the success GB has had Rodgers at the helm and assume it will be exactly the same without him. Boykin and White will not look as good. Even Jones when he comes back and Jordy will see their numbers drop. All you have to do is look at Jennings in MN to know it is so.
UserPostedImage

"Will you follow me, one last time?" Thorin Oakenshield
thanks Post received 1 applause.
texaspackerbacker on 11/4/2013(UTC)
Online texaspackerbacker  
#19 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 9:05:23 AM(UTC)
texaspackerbacker

Rank: 1st Round Draft Pick

Yahoo! NCAA March Madness - Gold: 2014

United States
Joined: 3/4/2013(UTC)
Location: Texas

Applause Given: 482
Applause Received: 292

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
Historical fact: past results are never the basis for future success.

I am not saying the Wallace could never win games. I am saying it is very unlikely to have Super Bowl success with him in charge. Look at all the WCO teams that have not won the SB year in and year out. Some pretty skillful QBs have come up short. They have to have talent around them in order to succeed. Aaron has succeeded in the absence of a lot of talent. Wallace would most likely not. Why it is not because the WCO is a failure (and GB doesn't run a true WCO by the way.) it is because he is not talented enough and with all the injuries the team's talent level has dropped. Don't look at the success GB has had Rodgers at the helm and assume it will be exactly the same without him. Boykin and White will not look as good. Even Jones when he comes back and Jordy will see their numbers drop. All you have to do is look at Jennings in MN to know it is so.


Seems like I've been applauding you a lot lately.

You must have borrowed that past results/future success line from mutual funds disclaimers hahahaha.

I could learn to like Seneca Wallace real quick if he ever had to get on the field and did a decent job.

My Point in this whole thing is that the PROBLEM is Packer weakness in the O Line, as well as RB until this season, and to a great extent, our D also. Aaron Rodgers is like an addiction. He is so damn good that we have been able to win big time even with all those other weaknesses. Losing him would be like getting off of whatever meds somebody is taking - suddenly all those aches and pains and weaknesses would really come to the surface and we'd be in a world of hurt.

Expressing the Good Normal Views of Good Normal Americans.
If Anything I Say Smacks of Extremism, Please Tell Me EXACTLY What.
Offline Yerko  
#20 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 9:26:52 AM(UTC)
Yerko

Rank: 2nd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 10/15/2008(UTC)
Location: Chicago, IL

Applause Given: 160
Applause Received: 263

Didn't even read the article because the title alone is dumb...just dumb.


Reading the article is probably like being inside one of nerdmann's dreams.

I'll pass. Laughing
UserPostedImage
Offline wpr  
#21 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 9:35:58 AM(UTC)
wpr

Rank: Hall of Famer

PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2012PackersHome NFL Pick'em - Gold: 2013FleaFlicker Fantasy Football - Bronze: 2013

United States
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 3,152
Applause Received: 1,522

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker Go to Quoted Post
Seems like I've been applauding you a lot lately.

You must have borrowed that past results/future success line from mutual funds disclaimers hahahaha.

I could learn to like Seneca Wallace real quick if he ever had to get on the field and did a decent job.

My Point in this whole thing is that the PROBLEM is Packer weakness in the O Line, as well as RB until this season, and to a great extent, our D also. Aaron Rodgers is like an addiction. He is so damn good that we have been able to win big time even with all those other weaknesses. Losing him would be like getting off of whatever meds somebody is taking - suddenly all those aches and pains and weaknesses would really come to the surface and we'd be in a world of hurt.



That is because I am a reasonable man. Duh!

The mutual fund disclaimer did come to mind. I even considered going and getting one off the net but I figured I made my point with the abbreviated version.

As far as Wallace goes I don't hate him. I know he has skills and ability. Stick him out there with a fully functioning line 3 top flight WR the #1 TE and fully stocked backfield not to mention a fully functioning defense that will help get the ball for the offense and he could win a few games. Take away 1/3 of them I question his to win consistently. After all if he was really that great he would not be on his third team this year alone.
UserPostedImage

"Will you follow me, one last time?" Thorin Oakenshield
Offline warhawk  
#22 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 12:40:11 PM(UTC)
warhawk

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

Joined: 8/7/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 1
Applause Received: 227

Teams would load up against the run and then unload on Wallace. It would not be pretty especially with all the guys that are out.
Arod is a special player who is managing an undermanned receiving group brilliantly. There is no throwing someone else in there and expecting the same results.

Because of how well Arod is handling the situation defenses cannot bring more players up in the box and shut down the run. His timing and accuracy is second to none but teams would alter their plan the very next play he isn't on the field.

There are some lousy teams out there and I suspect the Pack could limp into the playoffs but does anyone think there is an NFC playoff team we could beat without Arod?

Rodgers is getting the ball out quicker with superb pre-snap recognition. This takes ability, experience, confidence, and whatever else it takes. I highly doubt a guy sitting over on the sidelines not having seen a real game all year could come close to moving the team like Aaron Rodgers has.
"The train is leaving the station."
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 11/4/2013(UTC)
Offline nerdmann  
#23 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 1:36:34 PM(UTC)
nerdmann

Rank: Most Valuable Player

Joined: 9/14/2008(UTC)

Applause Given: 2,714
Applause Received: 665

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
Historical fact: past results are never the basis for future success.

I am not saying the Wallace could never win games. I am saying it is very unlikely to have Super Bowl success with him in charge. Look at all the WCO teams that have not won the SB year in and year out. Some pretty skillful QBs have come up short. They have to have talent around them in order to succeed. Aaron has succeeded in the absence of a lot of talent. Wallace would most likely not. Why it is not because the WCO is a failure (and GB doesn't run a true WCO by the way.) it is because he is not talented enough and with all the injuries the team's talent level has dropped. Don't look at the success GB has had Rodgers at the helm and assume it will be exactly the same without him. Boykin and White will not look as good. Even Jones when he comes back and Jordy will see their numbers drop. All you have to do is look at Jennings in MN to know it is so.


You're contradicting yourself.

We can take Seneca Wallace's past record and apply it to the future, but not take the historical records of teams in general? Remember, Wallace has been on some shit sucking teams. Take his record against the spread as a better indicator than his pure win/loss record.

And remember, in the playoffs, we'll have alot of these guys back. James Jones, Randall Cobb, Jermicheal Finley.

And no, the Packers DON'T run a pure WCO. They run a run and shoot vertical offense. WITH RODGERS. That's my point. We see what they're being forced to do now, with all these guys injured: adhere to fundamentals.

That's what they'd be doing with Seneca. They'd be helping him out with high percentage plays. They wouldn't be expecting him to hold the ball 8 seconds and take shots down the field.
“Winning is not a sometime thing, it is an all the time thing. You don't do things right once in a while…you do them right all the time.”
Online sschind  
#24 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 3:52:58 PM(UTC)
sschind

Rank: 3rd Round Draft Pick

United States
Joined: 3/5/2013(UTC)
Location: SE WISCONSIN

Applause Given: 123
Applause Received: 450

Originally Posted by: wpr Go to Quoted Post
Of course nerd meant the Packers organization as a whole which is a little silly. It doesn't matter what any other team did. Not even 2012 team which had so many of the current players on it. The team can only deal with the next game on their schedule not look backwards t years gone by in order to predict future victories.



Yeah, I know I was just trying to be diplomatic.

I respect your right to have your opinion but that doesn't mean I agree with it or respect you for having it.
thanks Post received 1 applause.
wpr on 11/4/2013(UTC)
Offline nyrpack  
#25 Posted : Monday, November 4, 2013 4:21:07 PM(UTC)
nyrpack

Rank: 4th Round Draft Pick

Joined: 9/26/2008(UTC)
Location: long island, ny

Applause Given: 5
Applause Received: 63

who ever believes this threads title is clearly dilusional !!
jimmy b.
Rss Feed 
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages123>
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

Tweeter

Recent Topics
now / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

8m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

9m / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

37m / Green Bay Packers Talk / texaspackerbacker

3h / Green Bay Packers Talk / DarkaneRules

4h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

10h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

11h / Green Bay Packers Talk / Laser Gunns

18h / Green Bay Packers Talk / nyrpack

23h / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / dhazer

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / rabidgopher04

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann

26-Nov / Green Bay Packers Talk / nerdmann