Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 115
  1. #41
    SKOL's Avatar
    SKOL is offline Ring of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    3,735

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "ultravikingfan" wrote:
    The contact with this hands did not lead to the player not catching the ball.

    The fact that the feet were tangled is the reason why he had no chance.

    Bad call.
    I'm not so sure it was a bad call... the defender stopped looking for the ball for the last 4 or 5 steps before the ball arrived.
    It's like he knew the ball was thrown further than he could defend.
    If the player's not playing the ball, it should not be incidental contact, it's just plain tripping, and thus interference... JMHO.

    The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good -Samuel Johnson - lexicographer
    The word genius isn t applicable in football. A genius is a guy like Norman Einstein - Joe Theisman

  2. #42
    ejmat is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    8,849

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "rttsbgtgb" wrote:
    "ejmat" wrote:
    Tough call to make really.
    It's hard to substantiate anything.
    Then why make the call? If it's a tough call to make, it becomes an issue of assumption on the part of the refs. You can't make assumptions in such a huge game. If it isn't 100% clear, you don't make the call.

    This is why pass interference of more than about 20 yards should be reviewable. It's too big a play to leave to assumptions.
    100% agree.
    That's part of the problem in football.
    A lot of calls are based on assumption of what or didn't happen.
    A ref should actually see something before making a call.
    I recall in the Miami Hurricane - Ohio State game a few years back that horrible call in the endzone where the ref from across the field called it.
    The guy never touched OSUs WR.
    How was it PI?
    I think reviewing these types of calls should happen.
    As a Viking fan I would welcome it with open arms since we always seem to be at the wrong side of calls.
    But going back to your point it shouldn't be called if it can't be seen.
    The refs these days are so flag happy it takes away from the game itself.

  3. #43
    rttsbgtgb's Avatar
    rttsbgtgb is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    130

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "ejmat" wrote:
    The refs these days are so flag happy it takes away from the game itself.
    It seems like the officiating this year is awful. Not just Packer games either. Watching other games and watching the officiating, I don't know if I've seen as bad officiating in recent years as I have this year. I don't know why.
    "We want the ball, and we're gonna score." - Matt Hasselbeck

  4. #44
    Prophet's Avatar
    Prophet is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    17,388

    Re: shows how good packers are

    [size=12pt]Pack of problems[/size]
    Green Bay limps out of Dallas with cause for concern
    Dr. Z, inside the NFL
    Posted: Friday November 30, 2007 8:10AM; Updated: Friday November 30, 2007 9:00AM
    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  5. #45
    C Mac D's Avatar
    C Mac D is offline Posting to P'own
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    13,468

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "Prophet" wrote:
    [size=12pt]Pack of problems[/size]
    Green Bay limps out of Dallas with cause for concern
    Dr. Z, inside the NFL
    Posted: Friday November 30, 2007 8:10AM; Updated: Friday November 30, 2007 9:00AM
    Dr. Z is an idiot. I don't listen to anything that guy says.
    Disclaimer: I'm an idiot.

  6. #46
    rttsbgtgb's Avatar
    rttsbgtgb is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    130

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "Prophet" wrote:
    [size=12pt]Pack of problems[/size]
    Green Bay limps out of Dallas with cause for concern
    Dr. Z, inside the NFL
    Posted: Friday November 30, 2007 8:10AM; Updated: Friday November 30, 2007 9:00AM
    I'm not buying anything he says.

    First, he implies the Packers are better without Favre. They're not. Rogers had a good game, yes. But to think he's ready to do that on a consistent basis is false.

    This guy is implying that Favre is basically washed up. How many years in a row have people been saying that? Yet for the last few years, he's been the heartbeat of this team. Without him, 4-12 would have seemed like a miracle.

    And this year, had Tom Brady not existed, he'd be in the running for the MVP.

    Yet he has one bad game and gets hurt against a good defensive team, and all of a sudden he's reverted back to a couple years ago?

    This guy clearly is going for the shock value of his article and ignoring common sense.

    And about the defense, they're fine. Dallas has a lot of firepower on their offense, so considering the bad turnovers and the 142 yards of penalties, coupled with KGB, Woodson, Jolly, Rouse, and Cole being out, and Tramon Williams coming up limping a couple times, 37 points is much less than should have been expected considering all the circumstances. I'm not saying they played good. They didn't by any means. But all things considered, against a good offense, that's not bad, and they certainly haven't fallen off.

    He's not using common sense. There comes a point in the number of injuries when it starts to affect a team. Doesn't matter who you are. The Packers are certainly being hit by the injury bug right now.

    When they get their people back, they'll be fine. Not a lock to win the Super Bowl like I'd like to say they are, but certainly nowhere close to as in trouble as what this guy is saying.
    "We want the ball, and we're gonna score." - Matt Hasselbeck

  7. #47
    Caine's Avatar
    Caine is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,139

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "rttsbgtgb]<br" wrote:
    [size=12pt]Pack of problems[/size]
    Green Bay limps out of Dallas with cause for concern
    Dr. Z, inside the NFL
    Posted: Friday November 30, 2007 8:10AM; Updated: Friday November 30, 2007 9:00AM
    I'm not buying anything he says.

    First, he implies the Packers are better without Favre. They're not. Rogers had a good game, yes. But to think he's ready to do that on a consistent basis is false.

    This guy is implying that Favre is basically washed up. How many years in a row have people been saying that? Yet for the last few years, he's been the heartbeat of this team. Without him, 4-12 would have seemed like a miracle.

    And this year, had Tom Brady not existed, he'd be in the running for the MVP.

    Yet he has one bad game and gets hurt against a good defensive team, and all of a sudden he's reverted back to a couple years ago?

    This guy clearly is going for the shock value of his article and ignoring common sense.

    And about the defense, they're fine. Dallas has a lot of firepower on their offense, so considering the bad turnovers and the 142 yards of penalties, coupled with KGB, Woodson, Jolly, Rouse, and Cole being out, and Tramon Williams coming up limping a couple times, 37 points is much less than should have been expected considering all the circumstances. I'm not saying they played good. They didn't by any means. But all things considered, against a good offense, that's not bad, and they certainly haven't fallen off.

    He's not using common sense. There comes a point in the number of injuries when it starts to affect a team. Doesn't matter who you are. The Packers are certainly being hit by the injury bug right now.

    When they get their people back, they'll be fine. Not a lock to win the Super Bowl like I'd like to say they are, but certainly nowhere close to as in trouble as what this guy is saying.
    [/quote]

    I agree with most everything you wrote, except what is bolded and italicized.

    IMO, Favre would not be an MVP candidate this season, even without Brady.
    Romo is having a better statistical year, and Roethlisberger isn't too far off either.
    Then there's Adrian Peterson who is turning the NFL on it's ear.
    He's a shoe-in for Rookie of the Year, but if he finishes strong, with how he's dominating the rushing game, he might be up for consideration.
    Then there's Moss...although without Brady, he might not be there...and Ownes (as much as it pains me to say it).
    Both of them are having fantastic seasons.

    Favre has played well the past few games, but he got off to a real slow start.
    Personally, I think he could play another 2 years - he's still "that good", but he certainly didn't look like it last night.
    He looked off.
    Now, with a throwing arm injury, how will that affcet him?


    It'll be interesting to see.

    Caine



  8. #48
    singersp's Avatar
    singersp is offline PPO Newshound
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    52,262

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "Prophet" wrote:

    The pass interference call was bogus too.

    I'm not so sure about that. The legs getting tangled up I can see as incidental, but the defender clearly made contact before that happenned. The replay clearly showed his hand up on the WR back prior to that. He could have been pushing him or trying to disrupt his route & that is what the flag should have been & quite easily could have been thrown for.

    Assuming the tangled feet is what caused the flag to be thrown & not the previous contact is just speculation.

    I think pass interference was the correct call, but perhaps it should have been the 5 yard, automatic first down variety.

    I don't know exactly where the fine line is drawn between the two.

    "If at first you don't succeed, parachuting is not for you"

  9. #49
    rttsbgtgb's Avatar
    rttsbgtgb is offline Rookie
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    130

    Re: shows how good packers are

    "Caine" wrote:
    IMO, Favre would not be an MVP candidate this season, even without Brady.
    Romo is having a better statistical year, and Roethlisberger isn't too far off either.
    Then there's Adrian Peterson who is turning the NFL on it's ear.
    Well, it depends on what an "MVP" truly is? Is it the 'most valuable player' to a team? Or is it who has the best stats?

    I think it should be most valuable to their team, while factoring in their record. I think that probably puts Favre #2, because they wouldn't be 10-2 without him. I'd put Romo #3 because he's not really dominant like Favre. Favre runs the offense, the offense runs around Romo. The Packers wouldn't be near as effective on offense without Favre, the Dallas offense could probably survive without Romo.

    Basically what I'm saying is, the Packers are worse without Favre than the Cowboys are without Romo.

    "Caine" wrote:
    Now, with a throwing arm injury, how will that affcet him?
    Normally I would be concerned, but after throwing for 399 yards and 4 TD's with a broken thumb on the night after his father died, I'm not worried about him unless it's something truly serious.

    One thing that will help, though, is the emergence of the running game. Now that Green Bay actually has a running game, it'll take the load off Favre.

    Besides, he has ten days to recover. They don't play until next Sunday. And their next two opponents are Oakland and St. Louis, so I'm not really all that worried.
    "We want the ball, and we're gonna score." - Matt Hasselbeck

  10. #50
    PurplePeopleEaters's Avatar
    PurplePeopleEaters is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    6,901

    Re: shows how good packers are

    My thoughts on the Pass interference call-

    Upong further review, the call looked bogus. How do you fault the ref for making that call though. In normal game speed it looked like the packer player pushed the cowboys player to the ground intentionally. If a guy falls down like that and it looks that blatant, it will get called more than half the time. I agreed with what the announcers said though.. they should change the rule so that calls like that are reviewable. You can say the packers got shafted but if it had been the other way around and the call had gone their direction, the cowboys fans would be complaining the same way. The call was a complete toss up at full game speed IMO.

Page 5 of 12 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 64
    Last Post: 03-30-2009, 08:54 PM
  2. MOVED: shows how good packers are
    By ultravikingfan in forum Vikings Fan Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-29-2007, 09:30 PM
  3. Packers: Aaron Rodgers shows signs of greatness
    By singersp in forum General NFL Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-14-2007, 02:57 AM
  4. Good shows coming to town
    By renovikesfan in forum The Clubhouse
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-27-2006, 12:29 PM
  5. Research shows Packers to be the dumbest team in the NFL.
    By fred3105 in forum Trash the Pack
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 10-06-2005, 07:37 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
  •