Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 63
  1. #21
    scharles's Avatar
    scharles is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    60

    Re: Packers linebackers

    "WinonaVike" wrote:
    Turn heads, maybe so people can look down into the cellar, but thats about all. Did having Favre make you a contender last year...sure didnt, he cost your more games than he won for you. Remember the Bears game, you can chalk up 10 points just off Favre turnovers, not to mention the ones the Pack could have had, had he not thrown it to them in the endzone. BTW, what has Picket done except dissapoint, will the linebackers be good, maybe eventually but its hard for rookie linebackers to play great immediatley, Trent Green said on ESPN that he feels its the hardest position to adapt to. Green Bay finishes 6-10, no better. Favre will have 20+ interceptions, he still doenst have any weapons.
    My biggest prob with pack fans, they sign a one marquee player (Woodson) and get Hawk and their prepared to talk about the Super Bowl even after going 4-12, they may have lost a lot of close games, but thsoe are the games favre used to win, facts must be faced, facts done lie, Favre is gettin to old.
    Facts are, last year is over. I try to inform you about the Packer's and where they stand. You don't understand that we had 15 players on the IR last year, many of which were key skill position players. Just having them would have accounted for a few games. Man roomie, I know you don't get the direct look I get at the Packers, cause you don't care. So I try to give you a look. Trent Green said the toughest position to play as a rookie in the NFL is MLB, because you're the QB on the defensive side of the ball. Barnett plays MLB, and the talk is that Hodge will transition to MLB throughout the year if he doesn't get it down early on. The main consensus of draft experts was the Hawk is the safest pick in the draft, most ready to step in and play. I'm not saying we are winning the SB, I said 9-7 at least. Favre didn't have much to work with last year, if you want to cover your eyes and say it was all him, go ahead, then put last year behind you, and watch him this year. Packers have upgraded, all that I've said, upgraded and are healthy. Here are the numbers from last year:

    OFFENSIVE RANK :

    Packers : 18th Overall

    Vikings : 25th Overall

    DEFENSIVE RANK :

    Packers : 7th Overall

    Vikings : 21st Overall

    Upgraded and Healthy.. what will the numbers look like next year? ONLY TIME WILL TELL.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    1,206

    Re: Packers linebackers

    The Pack's linebackers do look to be pretty good this year. And Hodge in the third? Great value for them. I still think that losing Grady Jackson will be a big deal for them though. Sorry scharles, but I wouldn't hold my breath on Picket being better than Jackson.

    I don't think Favre is too old to be a great QB, but some of these guys you got in the draft better be ready to come in and help on the O-line, or he could have another terrible year. Your receiving core also needs some people to step up big time, rookies or otherwise.

    Packers lost a lot of close games last year and could improve by a bunch this year.

    Personally, my hope is that Favre spends 2006 on his back and the Packers continue to lose close, gut-wrenching games on their way to an 0-16 season.
    When the age of the Vikings came to a close, they must have sensed it. Probably, they gathered together one evening, slapped each other on the back and said, "Hey, good job." - Jack Handey [Deep Thoughts]

  3. #23
    MaddenVodkaAddict's Avatar
    MaddenVodkaAddict is offline Coordinator
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    796

    Re: Packers linebackers

    "scharles" wrote:
    "WinonaVike" wrote:
    Turn heads, maybe so people can look down into the cellar, but thats about all. Did having Favre make you a contender last year...sure didnt, he cost your more games than he won for you. Remember the Bears game, you can chalk up 10 points just off Favre turnovers, not to mention the ones the Pack could have had, had he not thrown it to them in the endzone. BTW, what has Picket done except dissapoint, will the linebackers be good, maybe eventually but its hard for rookie linebackers to play great immediatley, Trent Green said on ESPN that he feels its the hardest position to adapt to. Green Bay finishes 6-10, no better. Favre will have 20+ interceptions, he still doenst have any weapons.
    My biggest prob with pack fans, they sign a one marquee player (Woodson) and get Hawk and their prepared to talk about the Super Bowl even after going 4-12, they may have lost a lot of close games, but thsoe are the games favre used to win, facts must be faced, facts done lie, Favre is gettin to old.
    Facts are, last year is over. I try to inform you about the Packer's and where they stand. You don't understand that we had 15 players on the IR last year, many of which were key skill position players. Just having them would have accounted for a few games. Man roomie, I know you don't get the direct look I get at the Packers, cause you don't care. So I try to give you a look. Trent Green said the toughest position to play as a rookie in the NFL is MLB, because you're the QB on the defensive side of the ball. Barnett plays MLB, and the talk is that Hodge will transition to MLB throughout the year if he doesn't get it down early on. The main consensus of draft experts was the Hawk is the safest pick in the draft, most ready to step in and play. I'm not saying we are winning the SB, I said 9-7 at least. Favre didn't have much to work with last year, if you want to cover your eyes and say it was all him, go ahead, then put last year behind you, and watch him this year. Packers have upgraded, all that I've said, upgraded and are healthy. Here are the numbers from last year:

    OFFENSIVE RANK :

    Packers : 18th Overall

    Vikings : 25th Overall

    DEFENSIVE RANK :

    Packers : 7th Overall

    Vikings : 21st Overall

    Upgraded and Healthy.. what will the numbers look like next year? ONLY TIME WILL TELL.
    I do not believe there is much difference from last year.
    I Love Kerry Collins (and John Rocker).

  4. #24
    BradTheMan14 is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    214

    Re: Packers linebackers

    dude face it favre sucks, he shouldve hung em up this year. actually he shouldve retired after he lost to us in the playoffs two years ago while throwing 4 ints. javon is gone the oline is decimated the rb's wont be able to stay healthy. the LB's might be decent, abdul hodge is a stud in the run game and so is hawk.. barnett is way overrated tho because the GB D stinks so bad but someone has to get the stats. GB is so lame.
    Q: At your age, can you handle a full season?
    A: I m 37, number one. I took my family to Perkins a couple of days ago, and they didn t hand me a senior citizens discount card, so I feel pretty good.
    (Brad Johnson at an interview before the start of the season)

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    960

    Re: Packers linebackers

    "BradTheMan14" wrote:
    dude face it favre sucks, he shouldve hung em up this year. actually he shouldve retired after he lost to us in the playoffs two years ago while throwing 4 ints. javon is gone the oline is decimated the rb's wont be able to stay healthy. the LB's might be decent, abdul hodge is a stud in the run game and so is hawk.. barnett is way overrated tho because the GB D stinks so bad but someone has to get the stats. GB is so lame.
    Using words like sucks and lame will win you no arguments, you gotta present evidence. With that said I dont know how anyone can think favre can lead an offense that is exactly the same as last year.
    You wanna talk IR, how bout losing a pro bowl center, starting DE, and one of our top CBs (Smoot was out for i believe 3 games). I guess you can talk all you want, but lets let the games show who is the better team. We may have only been better than the pack by 6 points, but 6 points is 6 points.

  6. #26
    BradTheMan14 is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    214

    Re: Packers linebackers

    i dont care about winning any stoopid arguements thats LAME i just felt like bashing the LAME packers cuz dude some SUCKY pack fan wants to come on here and start pumpin up the LAME AZZ packers..and come on i had a plethora of evidence, kind sir.
    Q: At your age, can you handle a full season?
    A: I m 37, number one. I took my family to Perkins a couple of days ago, and they didn t hand me a senior citizens discount card, so I feel pretty good.
    (Brad Johnson at an interview before the start of the season)

  7. #27
    GBFan is offline Starter
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    290

    Re: Packers linebackers

    wait, who filled in for Smoot when he was hurt?

    because, I'm pretty sure whoever it was that filled in did a much better job than Smoot


    I am in NO way expecting the Packers to go from 4-12 to.......11-5 or 12-4 or whatever, but I do think they'll improve to about a 7-9, 8-8 or 9-7 record and continue to build on that

  8. #28
    scharles's Avatar
    scharles is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    60

    Re: Packers linebackers

    "BradTheMan14" wrote:
    i dont care about winning any stoopid arguements thats LAME i just felt like bashing the LAME packers cuz dude some SUCKY pack fan wants to come on here and start pumpin up the LAME silliness packers..and come on i had a plethora of evidence, kind sir.
    This thread is about the Packer's Linebackers, so yes, I will put in my two cents. I don't bash your vikes, I give you my opinion on the our Pack and your Vikes, I understand you're going to bash the Pack, since this is a Vikings forum, but forums are about conversing and presenting arguments. I don't want to wear out my welcome but WinonaVike is right, present an argument with facts, or just present an argument, not just blind bashing.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    960

    Re: Packers linebackers

    "GBFan" wrote:
    wait, who filled in for Smoot when he was hurt?

    because, I'm pretty sure whoever it was that filled in did a much better job than Smoot


    I am in NO way expecting the Packers to go from 4-12 to.......11-5 or 12-4 or whatever, but I do think they'll improve to about a 7-9, 8-8 or 9-7 record and continue to build on that
    I agree Brian Williams did outplay smoot, and i was sad to see him go. But then again Samkon Gado outplayed Ahman Green, but im not prepared to say that Gado is a better back.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    960

    Re: Packers linebackers

    "BradTheMan14" wrote:
    i dont care about winning any stoopid arguements thats LAME i just felt like bashing the LAME packers cuz dude some SUCKY pack fan wants to come on here and start pumpin up the LAME silliness packers..and come on i had a plethora of evidence, kind sir.
    If you look at sCharles posts he has never bashed the Vikings, he states his opinion, i have no problem with fans like that being on here. You dont care about winning arguments, then dont say anything, if you dont wanna defend your argument then just shut up.
    So like dude quit acting "stoopid" and present an educated argument.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Linebackers... Who do you put where?
    By minvikes01 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 04-20-2006, 02:27 PM
  2. linebackers the key
    By x-ray jeff in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2004, 03:02 PM
  3. Linebackers: Hello?
    By Foreman44 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 09-26-2004, 02:51 PM
  4. Linebackers
    By bigdogbovy in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-22-2004, 09:07 PM
  5. Linebackers
    By josdin00 in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 05:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •