Packers set NFL record

**Marrdro** · 01-06-2010, 11:43 AM

**V4L** · 01-06-2010, 11:50 AM

Congrats to them

They killed it at the end when Tausher came back in

**green hornet** · 01-06-2010, 11:56 AM

I thought after they left rodgers in that long, that they were just going to keep him in to break Lynn Dickeys record, but hey, you can beat the pack, but you cant beat our dickey

**marstc09** · 01-06-2010, 12:01 PM

The Packers also had a 1,200-yard rusher in Ryan Grant and a pair of 1,000-yard receivers in Donald Driver and Greg Jennings to go with Rodgers' 4,000 for the second straight season. It's the first time in NFL history any team has done that, according to the Elias Sports Bureau.

If Percy and Berrian were not hurting some of the year, we would do this as well. Next year. Plus Favre spreads the ball around a lot.

Favre 4202
Peterson 1383
Rice 1312
Harvin 790
Berrian 618

I am surprised this has not happened before.

**Midge Resurrected** · 01-06-2010, 12:40 PM

marstc09 wrote:

The Packers also had a 1,200-yard rusher in Ryan Grant and a pair of 1,000-yard receivers in Donald Driver and Greg Jennings to go with Rodgers' 4,000 for the second straight season. It's the first time in NFL history any team has done that, according to the Elias Sports Bureau.

If Percy and Berrian were not hurting some of the year, we would do this as well. Next year. Plus Favre spreads the ball around a lot.

Favre 4202
Peterson 1383
Rice 1312
Harvin 790
Berrian 618

I am surprised this has not happened before.

Yeah ... it has not happened before because the 4,000 yard number has been difficult to come by. There are a lot more this year (10) than any year in the past, so I would expect to see things like this more often.

Also ... having 2 1,000 yard receivers happens, but normally carrying a 1,200 yard back with that doesn't. Teams are normally a committee at either RB or 2-4 on the WR depth chart ... Green Bay has mainstays at all of these spots.

Definitely interesting to see though.

**gregair13** · 01-07-2010, 01:32 AM

All I could read was Packers suck.

**Prophet** · 01-07-2010, 07:53 AM

I didn't care enough to click on the link and find out what record they set.

**Marrdro** · 01-07-2010, 09:44 AM

Midge Resurrected wrote:
Also ..........snip....... but normally carrying a 1,200 yard back with that doesn't. Teams are normally a committee at either RB or 2-4 on the WR depth chart ... Green Bay has mainstays at all of these spots.

Definitely interesting to see though.

Loved your RB by committe point.

**Marrdro** · 01-07-2010, 09:46 AM

gregair13 wrote:

All I could read was Packers suck.

......snicker......

Obviously they don't suck as much as a few Vikings fans seem to think my friend.

Truth of the matter is, I am not so sure I would want to see the PUKERS in the playoffs, just as I don't want to see the Colts, Chargers or Ain'ts, in that order.

**Prophet** · 01-07-2010, 09:50 AM

Marrdro wrote:

gregair13 wrote:

All I could read was Packers suck.

......snicker......

Obviously they don't suck as much as a few Vikings fans seem to think my friend.

Truth of the matter is, I am not so sure I would want to see the PUKERS in the playoffs, just as I don't want to see the Colts, Chargers or Ain'ts, in that order.

Pussy. They can beat any of them. Ask Tampa, and they suck. The Vikings have a helluva a team and can beat any of those teams if their game is on. I have no fear of any of those teams because I have seen too many things happen in the playoffs that all the 'experts' didn't predict. Every team in the playoffs is good and the Vikings can beat any of them.